Author Topic: A broader conversation on sedevacantism and the SSPX (Read 16140 times)

Ambrose · « **Reply #15 on:** February 05, 2013, 01:25:02 AM »

Machabees wrotes:

Quote

When you say: “Sedevacantism is not necessary for salvation, but it makes a Catholic safer in the crisis.”, is a long stretch again. To have a “private” belief that the Pope is not the Pope, which you have said in your other response, is NOT safer at all. It is a “private” interpretation. In other words, it is NOT secure in the Church’s judgment; for which you did recognize in another post: “He is an undeclared heretic.” “Yes, you are right. Only the Pope can declare one a heretic.” “then we can privately conclude.” “If times were normal, our duty would be to report such a person to the Church authorities, and it would be their duty to investigate and publicly judge the heretic. Once the Church declares a person a heretic, then all are bound to recognize that fact. That is why in our current situation, the status of the post Vatican II "popes" [as a heretic] is not a binding matter on Catholics, as the Church has not yet judged the matter.”

So you have rightly stated that for sedevacantists, it is on your own “private” discernment that you believe it to be so, and “is not a binding matter on Catholics, as the Church has not yet judged the matter.” So as it shows in your own words, Ambrose, that the Pope is -OBJECTIVELY- still the Pope and he is -OBJECTIVELY- still in the office of the Pope until the Church judges the matter.

You have made a logical leap here. What we are discussing here is not "what is the truth about Benedict XVI," rather we are discussing, "what is the status of the truth about Benedict XVI."

It is an objective fact that Benedict XVI has taught and professed public heresy. It is also a fact that he is a trained priest, former seminary professor, and expert theologian at Vatican II. It is also a fact that he opposed at the Council those who professed the orthodox doctrine, demonstrating that he knew he was opposing those who upheld the Church's teaching. Due that, pertinacity can be shown. He was not some ignorant, uneducated farmer who could not read and write who made mistakes on theology innocently.

When a heretic professes his heresy, and this can be any heretic, not just the current one we are discussing, Catholics can identify the heretic and denounce him, but what they cannot do is bind other Catholics to their conclusions about the status of the person.

For example, when Martin Luther began professing heresy, a Catholic may have recognized it right away, denounced him and warned every Catholic he came into contact with about him. But, what if another Catholics said, "I am not convinced, I have not read his writings and when I heard him, I did not hear any heresy." Is that Catholic guilty of sin for not believing you? The answer is no. You have no authority to bind him, he does not have to accept what you say. But, he does have to accept what the Pope says, and that is why a declaration binds him to this truth.

Martin Luther for several years was an undeclared public heretic. It was the duty of any Catholic who recognized this truth about him during this time to avoid him and denounce him and report him to the Church. He was a menace and a destroyer of souls. The status of Martin Luther during the time prior to the declaration by the Pope was that he was an undeclared public heretic. He was no longer a Catholic, as he had defected. He was not made outside the Church by the Pope's bull, he was no longer a member of the Church from the very moment he became a public heretic, and the Pope's declaration bound all Catholics to this public fact.

The same principle applies to Benedict. He was taught heresy publicly on many points. A reading of Dominus Iesus will demonstrate his heresy. For those who recognize this, we are bound to this truth by our own consciences, as we have formed certitude about this. For those who have no recognized his public heresy, they are not bound, as the authority of the Church has not bound them. Either way, though, the fact remains the same, Benedict XVI has publicly defected from the Faith.

I hope this helps to clarify. God bless.

Machabees · « **Reply #16 on:** February 05, 2013, 02:40:54 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Machabees,

Thank you for your responses. I will respond to each point, but let me start here in this post.

You wrote:
Quote

[All is well up until this next paragraph. It is here where you make an un-connected bridge again. In other words, you have a syllogism that does not actually work. For an understanding, definitions need to be made. ]

A heretic is not a Catholic. [Not correct. Firstly, to be Catholic is a mark on the soul from baptism. Once you have it; you never “lose” it. When an individual “privately” assumes another is a heretic –it does NOT make him “un-catholic”. A perceived “material” heretic -does NOT make him “un-catholic”. A “formal” heretic, when judged by the Church, does NOT make him “un-catholic”, however, it DOES remove the “formal” heretic from the salvation of the Church.] When one knows that another is a heretic by his words and actions, and that pertinacity can be shown, then it must be concluded that such a person is outside the Church. [No. That would be very rash and harsh without a competent “authority” to deem it so. Imagine what would happen in secular society if the same applies for “anyone” to suspect, judge, and cut another off from society without due process? That would be more than chaos; it would be tyranny on the streets. Would it not?] One cannot remain a Catholic and not have the Faith.

A Catholic can lose his membership in the Church. It is true that baptism brings one into the Church, but that membership is contingent on certain factors. First, one must keep the Faith. Second, one must remain in subjection to the Roman Pontiff and the bishops in union with him, and also remain in communion with other Catholics.

If a Catholic publicly abandons the Faith and adopts heretical ideas then he is no longer a Catholic. Catholics are bound together by one Faith, and we are not in communion with those who are not part of that Faith. Heresy is different than other crimes that can be censured, as heresy severs one from the body of the Church, as one cannot be a Catholic who does not adhere to the Faith.

This is taught by every theologian. This is not a a novel idea. We as Catholics are strictly bound to believe all that the Church teaches. We cannot refuse to believe even one point of the Faith. Many heretics of the past fell from the Faith over just one point.

It is harsh to stand in judgment over sinners who have fallen, but it is not harsh to denounce a public heretic. Heretics are dangerous to your faith and the Faith of every Catholic. We are not here talking about a Catholic who is innocent and does not grasp his faith very well, but believes whatever the Church teaches. A public heretic is a danger to the Faith of Catholics and the scriptures and the fathers of the Church warn us against heretics in very strong language.

I think the point you have not yet grasped is that the public heretic has cut himself off. His external actions of professing false doctrine, when such a person can be shown to be pertinacious, has cut himself off from the Body of Christ and is outside the Church. This all happens prior to any declaration of the Church. The Pope when declaring one a heretic does not sever the heretic from the Church, it has already taken place, from the moment the heretic began publicly professing heresy. The declaration of the Pope is a public witness to the fact that such a man is a heretic and now must be avoided. It binds all Catholics.

The is why the heretic is ipso facto deprived of his office if he holds an office in the Church. It is for this reason that Canon 188 #4, is located in the section under resignation, rather than censures. One who becomes a public heretic loses his membership in the Church, and by that tacitly resigns from his office. A heretic is deprived of his office by operation of the law, not a declaration. The declaration makes this fact known after the fact and binds all Catholics to adhere to it.

I hope this helps. God bless.

Ambrose,

Very often you interchange the word catholic and membership that does not make your meanings clear.

A Catholic, as I said in my other post, you can never lose the mark of baptism to call yourself un-catholic. If a catholic heretic was as at their death, and dies in his sin as such, in hell, one is still a catholic and has the mark of a catholic; and the punishment is greater.

A membership, one can lose in apostasy (heresy).

For mortal sin, one who just committed a mortal sin, did not lose the Faith; he lost Charity, and soon the Hope if it is not lapsed, and if lapsed in pernacity, he loses the Faith.

Ambrose, you are not reading my responses to you correctly.

A). I very much understand the theology of what you have written.

B). The problem is, that you yourself, privately, personally cannot judge “ipso facto” that another is a heretic. You do not know all of the elements involved to make that decision. Look at all of the people in the sedevacantist camp who run around saying completely different things that even contradict one another -like Gerry Matatics, and others… It is like the Protestants taking some theology and making a “private” interpretation out of it. Bishop Tissier recently wrote a book all about the thinking of Benedict XVI describing what he believes (…). It is simple but very complex.

C). Yes you can judge a situation to personally protect yourself.

D). You have stated many times that sedevacantism is a “private” matter: “He is an undeclared heretic.” “then we can privately conclude.” “Yes, you are right. Only the Pope can declare one a heretic.” “If times were normal, our duty would be to report such a person to the Church authorities, and it would be their duty to investigate and publicly judge the heretic. Once the Church declares a person a heretic, then all are bound to recognize that fact. That is why in our current situation, the status of the post Vatican II "popes" [as a heretic] is not a binding matter on Catholics, as the Church has not yet judged the matter.[/u]”

Off the cuff, it also stands to reason that if sedevacantism was the answer, the Holy Ghost would have given the clear movement to the foundation of His messenger, Archbishop Lefebvre, to act accordingly –He didn’t.

NO Saint in all of the history of the Old and New Testaments was ever a sedevacantist!

Food for thought…

God bless.

Machabees · « **Reply #17 on:** February 05, 2013, 03:57:40 AM »

Ambrose wrote:

Quote

“When a heretic professes his heresy, and this can be any heretic, not just the current one we are discussing, Catholics can identify the heretic and denounce him, but what they cannot do is bind other Catholics to their conclusions about the status of the person.

For example, when Martin Luther began professing heresy, a Catholic may have recognized it right away, denounced him and warned every Catholic he came into contact with about him. But, what if another Catholics said, "I am not convinced, I have not read his writings and when I heard him, I did not hear any heresy." Is that Catholic guilty of sin for not believing you? The answer is no. You have no authority to bind him, he does not have to accept what you say. But, he does have to accept what the Pope says, and that is why a declaration binds him to this truth.”

Ambrose,

You bring an example of Martin Luther; there are many others, however, as Martin Luther was a Catholic Priest, Augustine Monk, he professed “heresy” while in the “office” of a Catholic Priest, Augustine Monk. While in his “heresy” he still was functioning in his office as a Catholic Priest, Augustine Monk, until a process had taken place, then he was removed. When after he was publicly claimed a heretic, he lost his office, but still was a Catholic Priest, Augustine Monk. When he died in his heresy, though no longer a member of the salvation of the Catholic Church, he still died as a Catholic Priest, Augustine Monk.

You also return to the same theme of being a “private” matter of judging the Pope. That still does not dismiss him from being the Pope and visibly in the office of the Pope.

Think about it. Say you are the only one in the world out of (I do not know) 6-Billion Catholics, and you say the Pope is not the Pope, and he is vacant from the Chair, so to the other 5-billiion (plus), he is not the Pope to visibly guide the rest of the Church until God fixes the problem? You then have a quagmire.

Remember in the other examples of Church history, I mentioned a few in my other post within the Old and New Testaments, who “taught” contrary to the Religion of God: Aaron the High Priest, some of the Prophets who also “taught” contrary, etc, etc… There are many examples all throughout history. Bottom line –God did not remove them from their “office”, and He provided swiftly for each occasion (…).

Jesus Christ kept telling His disciples: “All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not..” (Matthew 23:3). And, “You (scribes and Pharisees) are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.” ( John 8:44). And, “Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you tithe mint, and anise, and cuмmin, and have left the weightier things of the law; judgment, and mercy, and faith. These things you ought to have done, and not to leave those undone.” (Matthew 23:23). And yet, “Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.” (Matthew 23:1-3).

Avoid the sin, respect the sinner…it is in God’s order until He fixes it.

God bless.

Ambrose · « **Reply #18 on:** February 05, 2013, 12:38:06 PM »

Machabees wrote:

Quote

A Catholic, as I said in my other post, you can never lose the mark of baptism to call yourself un-catholic. If a catholic heretic was as at their death, and dies in his sin as such, in hell, one is still a catholic and has the mark of a catholic; and the punishment is greater.

A membership, one can lose in apostasy (heresy).

For mortal sin, one who just committed a mortal sin, did not lose the Faith; he lost Charity, and soon the Hope if it is not lapsed, and if lapsed in pernacity, he loses the Faith.

Ambrose, you are not reading my responses to you correctly.

Dear Machabeees,

I will come to your other points later, but first I think it would be good if we could settle this one since it has caused some confusion.

I will post some points clearly and let me know if you agree or disagree, and we will work through it.

1. Baptism makes one a member of the Church.

2. Membership is contingent on certain factors. (1) A Catholic must keep the Faith (2) A Catholic cannot break from the unity of the Church which can be done through refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff and the bishops in union with him or breaking communion with other Catholics. (3) Not to have committed a crime which would incur excommunication from the Pope.

3. Mortal sin, as horrible as it is, does not sever one from the Church.

4. The indelible mark on the soul given at Baptism does not mean that one is always a Catholic. Most Protestants and eastern schismatics possess this mark, but are outside the Church.

5. The indelible mark also does not make one in Hell a Catholic, as you had stated. The Church does not exist in Hell. The Church is made up of three parts, the Church Militant, on earth, the Church Suffering, in Purgatory, and the Church Triumphant, in Heaven. Those in Hell may have once been Catholic, but now they are cut off forever. Their indelible mark or their baptism remains, but their membership in the Church does not remain.

6. One cannot be a "Catholic heretic." They are mutually exclusive. Once one becomes a public heretic, he has lost the Faith, and by losing the Faith and this being public, he loses his membership in the Church. In order to return to the Church he must be accepted and make an abjuration.

I hope this helps to clarify to avoid any confusion on these points. Thank you for the discussion. God bless.

Ambrose · « **Reply #19 on:** February 05, 2013, 02:33:47 PM »

Machabees wrote:

Quote

Yes, the Archbishop was very careful and cautious, that is why he has always said "that he is just an Archbishop; he cannot do anything himself. It needs to come from another Pope". The Archbishop himself never went beyond that -it would be imprudent. None the less, he knew what he can do, the Church provides the Highest Law of the Church -for the salvation of souls- the universal law of "Supplied Jurisdiction". All Catholics need to know and study what it is; it is the protection and movement of the baptized to receive the Faith without hindrance. (Please see my other posts that explain this in more detail).

I agree with most of what you wrote, with the exception that I am convinced that the Archbishop understood and was moving towards the belief that John Paul II was not a Pope. This was clear in his 1886 Address to Seminarians. I will post the Address and some thoughts I have formed on it on a separate thread so as to not overload one thread with divergent topics.

The SSPX since the Archbishop's death has been frozen in time in my opinion. They seem to think that the Archbishop's position about the status of the Conciliar "popes," was a permanent position which was beyond question. But, as the 1986 Address demonstrates, his position was not set in stone, as he was forming his mind, based on external evidence, that John Paul II may not be a Pope.

Machabees · « **Reply #20 on:** February 05, 2013, 05:56:21 PM »

Ambrose,

I will respond below in blue again.

Machabees wrote,

Quote

A Catholic, as I said in my other post, you can never lose the mark of baptism to call yourself un-catholic. If a catholic heretic was as at their death, and dies in his sin as such, in hell, one is still a catholic and has the mark of a catholic; and the punishment is greater.

A membership, one can lose in apostasy (heresy).

For mortal sin, one who just committed a mortal sin, did not lose the Faith; he lost Charity, and soon the Hope if it is not lapsed, and if lapsed in pernacity, he loses the Faith.

Ambrose, you are not reading my responses to you correctly.

Ambrose wrote:

Dear Machabees,

I will come to your other points later, but first I think it would be good if we could settle this one since it has caused some confusion.

I will post some points clearly and let me know if you agree or disagree, and we will work through it.

1. Baptism makes one a member of the Church. [Yes.]

2. Membership is contingent on certain factors. (1) A Catholic must keep the Faith [Yes.] (2) A Catholic cannot break from the unity of the Church which can be done through refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff and the bishops in union with him or breaking communion with other Catholics. [Yes.] (3) Not to have committed a crime which would incur excommunication from the Pope. [Yes.]

3. Mortal sin, as horrible as it is, does not sever one from the Church. [Yes at first, however, mortal sin is the loss of Charity in the soul, and without actual grace, it is a weakness of Hope and Faith; if lapsed through unrepentance in that mortal sin, then Hope and Faith is lost; which then severs one from the salvation of the Church.]

4. The indelible mark on the soul given at Baptism does not mean that one is always a Catholic. [No. This is false. An indelible mark is an indelible mark. It is never removed. Like confirmation and Holy Orders. One can be an apostate Catholic, and be in a different religion, but one always has the “indelible mark” as a Catholic. You cannot “indelible un-mark” in sin, and then “indelible mark” back up again.] Most Protestants and eastern schismatics possess this mark, but are outside the Church. [Yes they are outside of the Church only by apostation and formal heresy. It is important to also understand in the Catechism that if a “Protestant and eastern schismatics, are Baptized in the Gospel form of the Bible, with water (the Bible comes from the Catholic Church), saying the words: “I Baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit).”, they become truly, and very, Catholic; yet, while “practicing” in another religion, they are a Catholic apostate.

Here is another example I heard in catechism class: A person is in a car accident, and it is fatal. The person who is dying was not yet baptized and is still conscience. With people looking over him (a Protestant, Jew, Muslim, Pagan, and even an atheist), the dying person wants to be baptized. He says to one of them, take that water, pour it over my head while saying these words: “I Baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit).”, the Priest in this catechism class has said, that the soul is baptized as a Catholic and is in the Catholic Church.

To understand more of the Church’s intention on this, go to any Catholic Priest and ask him why he would need to do a “conditional” baptism to a convert who just came to him, and is ready through catechism class, for baptism. The answer is: You cannot baptize a soul twice. Once the soul has the “indelible mark of Catholicism” on it, another Catholic baptism has no effect. Thus, the Church gives a “conditional” baptism to make sure the soul was baptized correctly in order to have no doubt in the matter.]

5. The indelible mark also does not make one in Hell a Catholic, as you had stated. [False. The “mark” of baptism is a “mark” of a Catholic –it is an indelible mark on the soul. It cannot be removed through mortal sin, apostation, heresy, or even a “scrub brush”. It is there forever; for all eternity. Please ask a Priest about this. This is an important, and very real answer, that is in the catechism.] The Church does not exist in Hell. [The salvation of the Church does not exist in Hell. In hell, there are simply only two categories of souls in there. Those that are there by the mortal apostation of the Natural Law; i.e. any atheist, naturalist, pagan, or other religion who did not know the truth of Jesus Christ and His salvation of the True Church, and did not follow the Natural Law that is innate in every soul made by God (see St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa on this question). The other category is, those who did know the salvation of Jesus Christ, and still chose to go to hell by the mortal apostation of baptism. Any Catholics who may unfortunately be in there by any mortal sin (apostation and heresy included), are there because of the mortal apostation from God though baptism, the souls of which, do have the “indelible mark” of baptism. Therefore, having the indelible mark of a Catholic baptism, there are Catholics in hell, and the punishment is greater.] The Church is made up of three parts, the Church Militant, on earth, the Church Suffering, in Purgatory, and the Church Triumphant, in Heaven. Those in Hell may have once been Catholic [members], but now they are cut off forever. Their indelible mark or their baptism remains, but their membership in the Church does not remain. [Yes.]

6. One cannot be a "Catholic heretic." They are mutually exclusive. [No. You seem to separate the word Catholic from baptism, while associating as one meaning, a Catholic and member. It is the other way around. A Catholic and baptism is one and the same, and a Catholic and a member can be two different things. When one says they are Catholic, it is because they are baptized. When one says they are baptized (in the Catholic form of the Gospel), they are Catholic; it is one and the same. When one says that they are a member of the Catholic Church, it is because they are a Catholic. However, when one says that they are Catholic (by baptism) it does not mean that they are a practicing member of the Catholic Church i.e. lapse mortal sin, apostation, or formal heresy.

In regards to Faith and Catholic, when one says they have the Faith, it is because they are Catholic; it is one and the same. However, when one says they are Catholic, it does not mean that they are practicing the Faith, or even have it any longer i.e. lapse mortal sin, apostation, or formal heresy; but they are still a Catholic.

Also, you seem to separate the word Catholic from heretic (mutually exclusive). The word Catholic and heretic are only associated by cause and effect. Like truth and error. The definition of “error” is the absence of truth. The definition of “darkness” is the absence of light. In other words, you need first to be a Catholic before you can apostate into a heretic.

You can also say in that meaning, that to combine those two words of “catholic heretic” is really redundant in a Catholic discussion; because when you say heretic, one means apostation from being a Catholic. But to the uneducated world, redundancy is necessary.

Also, when the word heretic is used in the case of “a catholic heretic”, it is used as a noun; and the word Catholic is used as a descriptive to that noun (The catholic heretic. A catholic heretic. As like: A catholic soldier. A catholic man. Etc). A heretic has only one meaning; and other religions (false) cannot use it. It is a word that has a direct relationship to the Truth. One can have the truth. One does not know the truth. One can be a heretic to the truth. Truth is Catholic; as Catholic is Truth. So the word heretic can only be used in relation to apostation from Catholicism –a catholic heretic.]

Once one becomes a public heretic, he has lost the Faith, and by losing the Faith and this being public, he loses his membership in the Church. In order to return to the Church he must be accepted and make an abjuration. [Yes, however, justice requires more stringencies on the accuser to prove the “heretic” with “matter and form”. Matter: of the substance of the heresy, and form: of the conscience of the heresy. In other words, knowing the contents of “material and formal” heresy to pass judgment.]

I hope this helps to clarify to avoid any confusion on these points. Thank you for the discussion. God bless.

Your welcome. I enjoy the discussion also; it raises the mind to think of the beauty and splendor of God in His Faith and in His Church.

God bless.

RJS · « **Reply #21 on:** February 05, 2013, 06:43:17 PM »

Quote from: Machabees

2. Membership is contingent on certain factors. (1) A Catholic must keep the Faith [Yes.] (2)

Machabees,

Here's a few quotes showing that faith is not necessary for membership in the Church.

Bellarmine: "

ccult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members… therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope. This is also the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book De Ecclesia. …the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external”.

An occult heretic is one who has lost the faith.

Suarez: “[T]he faith is not absolutely necessary in order that a man be capable of spiritual and ecclesiastical jurisdiction and be able to exercise true acts which demand this jurisdiction …. The foregoing is obvious, granted that, as is taught in the treatises on penance and censures, in case of extreme necessity a priest heretic may absolve, which is not possible without jurisdiction. (…) The Pope heretic is not a member of the Church as far as the substance and form which constitute the members of the Church; but he is the head as far as the charge and action; and this is not surprising, since he is not the primary and principal head who acts by his own power, but is as it were instrumental, he is the vicar of the principal head, who is able to exercise his spiritual action over the members even by means of a head of bronze; analogously, he baptizes at times by means of heretics, at times he absolves, etc., as we have already said”.

Bouix: “Faith is not necessary for a man to be capable of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and that he might exercise true acts which require such jurisdiction. (…) Moreover, the power of orders, which in its way is superior, can remain without faith, that is, with heresy; therefore ecclesiastical jurisdiction can do so too (…) To the argument that, not being a member of the Church [the soul], the heretical Pope is not the head of the Church either … one can give the following answer: I concede that the Pope heretic is not a member and head of the Church in so far as the supernatural life which commences by faith and is completed by charity, by which all the members of the Church are united in one body supernaturally alive; but I deny that he might not be a member and head of the Church as far as the governing power proper to his charge”.

Regarding a pope who loses the faith Garrigou-Lagrance wrote the following:

Garrigou-Lagrange: “This condition is quite abnormal, hence no wonder that something abnormal results from it, namely, that the pope becoming secretly a heretic would no longer be an actual member of the Church, according to the teaching as explained in the body of the article, but would still retain his jurisdiction by which he would influence the Church in ruling it. Thus he would still be nominally the head of the Church, which he would still rule as head, though he would no longer be a member of Christ, because he would not receive that vital influx of faith from Christ, the invisible and primary head. Thus in quite an abnormal manner he would be in point of jurisdiction the head of the Church, though he would not be a member of it.

“This condition could not apply to the natural head in its relation to the body, but such a condition is not repugnant in the case of the moral and secondary head. The reason is that, whereas the natural head must receive a vital influx from the soul before it can influence the members of its body, the moral head, such as the pope is, can exercise his jurisdiction over the Church, although he receives no influx of interior faith and charity from the soul of the Church. More briefly, as Billuart says, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, and his headship of the visible Church by jurisdiction and power is compatible with private heresy. The Church will always consist in the visible union of its members with its visible head, namely, the pope of Rome, although some, who externally seem to be members of the Church, may be private heretics”.

Machabees · « **Reply #22 on:** February 05, 2013, 07:56:48 PM »

Quote from: RJS

Quote from: Machabees
2. Membership is contingent on certain factors. (1) A Catholic must keep the Faith [Yes.] (2)

Machabees,

Here's a few quotes showing that faith is not necessary for membership in the Church.

Bellarmine: "
ccult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members… therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope. This is also the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book De Ecclesia. …the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external”.

An occult heretic is one who has lost the faith.

Suarez: “[T]he faith is not absolutely necessary in order that a man be capable of spiritual and ecclesiastical jurisdiction and be able to exercise true acts which demand this jurisdiction …. The foregoing is obvious, granted that, as is taught in the treatises on penance and censures, in case of extreme necessity a priest heretic may absolve, which is not possible without jurisdiction. (…) The Pope heretic is not a member of the Church as far as the substance and form which constitute the members of the Church; but he is the head as far as the charge and action; and this is not surprising, since he is not the primary and principal head who acts by his own power, but is as it were instrumental, he is the vicar of the principal head, who is able to exercise his spiritual action over the members even by means of a head of bronze; analogously, he baptizes at times by means of heretics, at times he absolves, etc., as we have already said”.

Bouix: “Faith is not necessary for a man to be capable of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and that he might exercise true acts which require such jurisdiction. (…) Moreover, the power of orders, which in its way is superior, can remain without faith, that is, with heresy; therefore ecclesiastical jurisdiction can do so too (…) To the argument that, not being a member of the Church [the soul], the heretical Pope is not the head of the Church either … one can give the following answer: I concede that the Pope heretic is not a member and head of the Church in so far as the supernatural life which commences by faith and is completed by charity, by which all the members of the Church are united in one body supernaturally alive; but I deny that he might not be a member and head of the Church as far as the governing power proper to his charge”.

Regarding a pope who loses the faith Garrigou-Lagrance wrote the following:

Garrigou-Lagrange: “This condition is quite abnormal, hence no wonder that something abnormal results from it, namely, that the pope becoming secretly a heretic would no longer be an actual member of the Church, according to the teaching as explained in the body of the article, but would still retain his jurisdiction by which he would influence the Church in ruling it. Thus he would still be nominally the head of the Church, which he would still rule as head, though he would no longer be a member of Christ, because he would not receive that vital influx of faith from Christ, the invisible and primary head. Thus in quite an abnormal manner he would be in point of jurisdiction the head of the Church, though he would not be a member of it.

“This condition could not apply to the natural head in its relation to the body, but such a condition is not repugnant in the case of the moral and secondary head. The reason is that, whereas the natural head must receive a vital influx from the soul before it can influence the members of its body, the moral head, such as the pope is, can exercise his jurisdiction over the Church, although he receives no influx of interior faith and charity from the soul of the Church. More briefly, as Billuart says, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, and his headship of the visible Church by jurisdiction and power is compatible with private heresy. The Church will always consist in the visible union of its members with its visible head, namely, the pope of Rome, although some, who externally seem to be members of the Church, may be private heretics”.

RJS,

Welcome to Cathinfo.

I very much agree, and thank you for adding to this discussion, within this difficult crisis we all face.

In the context of my answer given to Ambrose, he asked in his #1. "Baptism makes one a member of the Church." I responded: [Yes.] as this is the beginning of the "supernatural life". Ambrose then proceeded to his #2. (refereed to in your selected quote) "Membership is contingent on certain factors. (1) A Catholic must keep the Faith." I responded in the same line of thought: [Yes.] based on the membership of the "supernatural life".

You have included well in your post quotes from the Church's treasure; they are very profound and deep in thought; of the which I do recognize, believe, and hold. Including to what gives to my above context:

Bouix: "...I concede that the Pope heretic is not a member and head of the Church in so far as the supernatural life which commences by faith and is completed by charity, by which all the members of the Church are united in one body supernaturally alive; but I deny that he might not be a member and head of the Church as far as the governing power proper to his charge”.

Ambrose · « **Reply #23 on:** February 06, 2013, 12:35:51 AM »

Machabees,

You have brought up many issues here which now elevate the discussion to a new level, and far more complexity. I will answer each point one by one as time permits. Thank you for the discussion. I will work to bring Catholic sources to support each point. God bless.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #24 on:** February 06, 2013, 01:46:50 AM »

Quote from: RJS

Regarding a pope who loses the faith Garrigou-Lagrance wrote the following:

Garrigou-Lagrange: “This condition is quite abnormal, hence no wonder that something abnormal results from it, namely, that the pope becoming secretly a heretic would no longer be an actual member of the Church, according to the teaching as explained in the body of the article, but would still retain his jurisdiction by which he would influence the Church in ruling it. Thus he would still be nominally the head of the Church, which he would still rule as head, though he would no longer be a member of Christ, because he would not receive that vital influx of faith from Christ, the invisible and primary head. Thus in quite an abnormal manner he would be in point of jurisdiction the head of the Church, though he would not be a member of it.

“This condition could not apply to the natural head in its relation to the body, but such a condition is not repugnant in the case of the moral and secondary head. The reason is that, whereas the natural head must receive a vital influx from the soul before it can influence the members of its body, the moral head, such as the pope is, can exercise his jurisdiction over the Church, although he receives no influx of interior faith and charity from the soul of the Church. More briefly, as Billuart says, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, and his headship of the visible Church by jurisdiction and power is compatible with private heresy. The Church will always consist in the visible union of its members with its visible head, namely, the pope of Rome, although some, who externally seem to be members of the Church, may be private heretics”.

Yet Garrigou-Lagrange holds, as it seems with St. Thomas ("The Church is the congregation of the faithful" [IIIa q.8 a.4 ad 2]), the opposite view of St. Bellarmine, which becomes clear in the very work you cited (Christ the Saviour, L.11 C.11):

"Thus the conclusion we must come to is, that occult heretics are only apparent members of the Church, which they externally and visibly profess to be the true Church."

"Hence the baptized formal heretic is not an actual member of the Church, and yet the Church has the right of punishing him, inasmuch as he does not maintain what he promised to believe, just as a king has the right to punish fugitive soldiers."

In any case, this question is controversial, but it seems that Bellarmine's opinion is more generally accepted.

Cristian · « **Reply #25 on:** February 06, 2013, 06:38:46 AM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

Quote from: RJS
Regarding a pope who loses the faith Garrigou-Lagrance wrote the following:

Garrigou-Lagrange: “This condition is quite abnormal, hence no wonder that something abnormal results from it, namely, that the pope becoming secretly a heretic would no longer be an actual member of the Church, according to the teaching as explained in the body of the article, but would still retain his jurisdiction by which he would influence the Church in ruling it. Thus he would still be nominally the head of the Church, which he would still rule as head, though he would no longer be a member of Christ, because he would not receive that vital influx of faith from Christ, the invisible and primary head. Thus in quite an abnormal manner he would be in point of jurisdiction the head of the Church, though he would not be a member of it.

“This condition could not apply to the natural head in its relation to the body, but such a condition is not repugnant in the case of the moral and secondary head. The reason is that, whereas the natural head must receive a vital influx from the soul before it can influence the members of its body, the moral head, such as the pope is, can exercise his jurisdiction over the Church, although he receives no influx of interior faith and charity from the soul of the Church. More briefly, as Billuart says, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, and his headship of the visible Church by jurisdiction and power is compatible with private heresy. The Church will always consist in the visible union of its members with its visible head, namely, the pope of Rome, although some, who externally seem to be members of the Church, may be private heretics”.

Yet Garrigou-Lagrange holds, as it seems with St. Thomas ("The Church is the congregation of the faithful" [IIIa q.8 a.4 ad 2]), the opposite view of St. Bellarmine, which becomes clear in the very work you cited (Christ the Saviour, L.11 C.11):

"Thus the conclusion we must come to is, that occult heretics are only apparent members of the Church, which they externally and visibly profess to be the true Church."

"Hence the baptized formal heretic is not an actual member of the Church, and yet the Church has the right of punishing him, inasmuch as he does not maintain what he promised to believe, just as a king has the right to punish fugitive soldiers."

In any case, this question is controversial, but it seems that Bellarmine's opinion is more generally accepted.

Sorry to jump in here guys...

Here is Salaverri explaining the mind of St Thomas.

Quote

1039. Scholion 2. The mind of the theologians on the Church taken in a wide or stric sense.

St Thomas talks about the Church understood in this twofold meaning.

1) On the Church in the wide sense he teaches mainly this:

a) The body of the Church is made up of the men who have been from the beginning of the world until its end (3 q.8 a.3)

b) The ancient Fathers, by observing the legal sacraments, were borne to Christ by the same faith and lovewhereby we also are borne to Him, and hence the ancient Fathers belong to the same Church as we. (3 q.8 a.3 ad 3).

c) Sinners are not members of Christ... except, perhaps, imperfectly, by formless faith, which unites to God, relatively but not simply (3 q.8 a.3 ad 2).

d) Lifeless faith is common to all members of the Church (2.2 q.4 a.5 ad 4)

e) The whole Church is united together by faith (2.2 q.1 a.9 ad 3)

f) The Church is the congregation of the faithful (3 q.8 a.4 ad 2)

2) On the Church in a strict sense St Thomas teaches:

a) Since Christ's coming, men are incorporated in Christ by faith But faith in a thing already present is manifested by a sign different from that by which it was manifested when that thing was yet in the future. But for this end is Baptism conferred on a man, that being regenerated thereby, he may be incorporated in Christ, by becoming His member. (3 q.68 a.1 c et ad 1).

b) By Baptism men are incorporated in Christ. (3 q.68 a.4, a.5 c et ad 1; q. 69 a.2 et ad 1).

Salaverri coments: ”This is as a principle that St Thomas always uses in order to argue”

c) Baptism is ordained unto a certain spiritual regeneration, by which man becomes a member of Christ (3 q.62 a.2; q.69 a. 6).

d) Those who are sanctified in the womb receive indeed grace which cleanses them from original sin, but they do not therefore receive the character, by which they are conformed to Christ. (3 q.68 a.1 ad 3).

e) “Adults who already believe in Christ are incorporated in Him mentally. But afterwards, when they are baptized, they are incorporated in Him, corporally, as it were, i.e. by the visible sacrament; without the desire of which they could not have been incorporated in Him even mentally. (3 q.69 a.5 ad 1; a.4 ad 2)

Salaverri says: “St Thomas clearly teaches that the desire of baptism either explicit or implicit is necessary."

Note that according to Salaverri St Thomas is dealing on 3. q 8 with the Church in a wide sense, therefore it is wrong to take from there arguments related to membership.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #26 on:** February 06, 2013, 07:06:22 AM »

Quote from: Cristian

Sorry to jump in here guys...

Here is Salaverri explaining the mind of St Thomas.

Thanks Cristian, of course you would not miss on a subject discussing Church membership!
All my best wishes to you.

Cristian · « **Reply #27 on:** February 06, 2013, 08:37:44 AM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

Quote from: Cristian
Sorry to jump in here guys...

Here is Salaverri explaining the mind of St Thomas.

Thanks Cristian, of course you would not miss on a subject discussing Church membership!
All my best wishes to you.

Hi Pyrrhos! I hope you are doing well :)

Well to tell you the truth I`ve not followed this interesting exchange of posts completely. I just glanced it.

The subject is certainly fascinating!

God bless,

Cristian

SJB · « **Reply #28 on:** February 06, 2013, 09:46:00 AM »

Quote from: Salaverri

“As a private person, can the Pope fall into heresy? The theologians dispute about this question. To us it seems more pious and more probable to admit that God will take care, by his Providence, that never will a Pope be a heretic”.

The above is Salaverri's statement of Bellarmine's "first opinion" on the Pope-Heretic question. This clearly shows that “first opinion” isn't intended to address the question of whether a pope might err in his official capacity as the Vicar of Christ, but addresses a pope acting unofficially as a private individual.

If one loses sight of this distinction, any discussion becomes confusing and worthless.

RJS · « **Reply #29 on:** February 06, 2013, 12:16:01 PM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

Quote from: RJS
Regarding a pope who loses the faith Garrigou-Lagrance wrote the following:

Garrigou-Lagrange: “This condition is quite abnormal, hence no wonder that something abnormal results from it, namely, that the pope becoming secretly a heretic would no longer be an actual member of the Church, according to the teaching as explained in the body of the article, but would still retain his jurisdiction by which he would influence the Church in ruling it. Thus he would still be nominally the head of the Church, which he would still rule as head, though he would no longer be a member of Christ, because he would not receive that vital influx of faith from Christ, the invisible and primary head. Thus in quite an abnormal manner he would be in point of jurisdiction the head of the Church, though he would not be a member of it.

“This condition could not apply to the natural head in its relation to the body, but such a condition is not repugnant in the case of the moral and secondary head. The reason is that, whereas the natural head must receive a vital influx from the soul before it can influence the members of its body, the moral head, such as the pope is, can exercise his jurisdiction over the Church, although he receives no influx of interior faith and charity from the soul of the Church. More briefly, as Billuart says, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, and his headship of the visible Church by jurisdiction and power is compatible with private heresy. The Church will always consist in the visible union of its members with its visible head, namely, the pope of Rome, although some, who externally seem to be members of the Church, may be private heretics”.

Point 1: Yet Garrigou-Lagrange holds, as it seems with St. Thomas ("The Church is the congregation of the faithful" [IIIa q.8 a.4 ad 2]), the opposite view of St. Bellarmine, which becomes clear in the very work you cited (Christ the Saviour, L.11 C.11):

"Thus the conclusion we must come to is, that occult heretics are only apparent members of the Church, which they externally and visibly profess to be the true Church."

Point 2 "Hence the baptized formal heretic is not an actual member of the Church, and yet the Church has the right of punishing him, inasmuch as he does not maintain what he promised to believe, just as a king has the right to punish fugitive soldiers."

In any case, this question is controversial, but it seems that Bellarmine's opinion is more generally accepted.

Pyrrhos,

Regarding the point I labeled"point 1" above, Bellarmine and Garrigou-Lagrange agree that a pope who falls into heresy and loses the faith remains head of the Church. He remains head of the Church as far as jurisdiction is concerned, even though he is not united to Christ by faith or charity. That is an important point given the situation we find ourselves in today.

Now, with respect to a pope who became a formal heretic in the external forum (for example, a pope who openly left the Church and joined a heretical sect) that is another story. A pope who loses the faith yet remains in office, all the while claiming to be a Catholic, is a different situation. In that case, he would not be considered a formal heretic in the external forum. As Suares says below, in such a case he would only lose his office when a sentence was passed against him.

Suarez: Suarez: “f 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 by force or by other”. ...
“I affirm: if he were a heretic and incorrigible, the Pope would cease to be Pope just when a sentence was passed against him for his crime, by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church. This is the common opinion among the doctors,[/u] and it is gathered from the first epistle of Saint Clement I, in which one reads that Saint Peter taught that a Pope heretic must be deposed.

Regarding "point 2" above, this is referring to a formal heretic in the external forum; meaning one who has openly left the Church. Even though such a person no longer claims to be a member of the Church, they can still be punished by the Church.