Author Topic: A broader conversation on sedevacantism and the SSPX (Read 12589 times)

SJB · « **Reply #30 on:** February 06, 2013, 01:23:24 PM »

Quote from: RJS

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.

Please explain where Bellarmine agrees that a pope-heretic remains pope.

This is precisely why I pointed out the distinction between the pope being a heretic as a private teacher and that of a pope being a heretic in his official capacity as Vicar of Christ. The latter is impossible.

Here is Bellarmine:

Quote from: St. Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff

"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: 'He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.'

"The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics [i.e. who are not heretics] are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; 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; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved."

Ambrose · « **Reply #31 on:** February 06, 2013, 01:53:58 PM »

Machabees wrote:

Quote

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.]

(Your words in brackets)

We agree on this, but let us be clear on the terms here. Mortal sin, if unrepented at death will lead to damnation. But, as long as a Catholic is alive, mortal sin does not sever one from their membership in the Church. Heresy, schism and excommunication sever one from the Church, but not any mortal sin other than these. We are here talking of membership in the Church, which is what the Catechism is referring to.

As the Roman Catechism states;

Quote

Those Who Are Not Members Of The Church

Hence there are but three classes of persons excluded from the Church's pale: infidels, heretics and schismatics, and excommunicated persons. Infidels are outside the Church because they never belonged to, and never knew the Church, and were never made partakers of any of her Sacraments. Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted. It is not, however, to be denied that they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, inasmuch as they may be called before her tribunals, punished and anathematised. Finally, excommunicated persons are not members of the Church, because they have been cut off by her sentence from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent.

But with regard to the rest, however wicked and evil they may be, it is certain that they still belong to the Church: Of this the faithful are frequently to be reminded, in order to be convinced that, were even the lives of her ministers debased by crime, they are still within the Church, and therefore lose nothing of their power.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html

Machabees · « **Reply #32 on:** February 06, 2013, 01:55:04 PM »

Thanks to all who are coming in the discussion.

This topic is very important to understand in this unprecedented crisis we all suffer in, including atheists: "Is the Pope the Pope; a Formal heretic?".

It is certainly true that the present Pope (as with JPVII and JPII) are teaching modernism. I also realize in this "strike the shepherd; the sheep will scatter." situation, that in the consequence of this "scattering", there are now many more thoughts, understandings, groups, factions, and so on that had resulted in this crisis. Although we may not come to fully understand all that God may want in His providence to allow this to happen -except for the mystery of the cross- we do need to trust in Him to provide.

As this "broader conversation on sedevacantism and the SSPX" is developing, like any discussion, the basis of need to understand meaning and terms is essential. I believe we are coming to an understanding on this and ready to go to the core of the question: "Is the Pope the Pope; a Formal heretic?"

As RJS helped first to bring this to its next needed level, as with others who have helped to bring in the thoughts of the Holiness of the Church, there is a basic summation and premise that all of this "new level" is dealing with when we are talking about: "Is the Pope the Pope". Then after we can get to the next question of: is he a “Formal” heretic or not?.

To the first question: "Is the Pope the Pope". Let’s bring in an example:

A father of a family is a member of that family, first by natural propagation (let us leave that out to apply this example), he is a member by government and jurisdiction, and a member by the Faith in the "objective" sharing and cultivation of that faith commanded by God to spread that Faith.

One day, this father started, in his person, to "teach" something different to that Faith in the "supernatural life" in his private capacity while in the Chair of his position (like Aaron and the golden calf, Caiaphas condemning Jesus Christ to death, Solomon and his permission of ecuмenical groves to be built to false gods and worship, and many others who had "taught" things contrary to that Faith). The children members started to complain to their father about this. The father listened, or half listened, and continued on; perhaps in human respect, or in peer pressure, or in a different upbringing of “understanding” of that Faith in its meanings and terms, or an outright abandonment of that understanding of the Faith to purposely teach something else, as with many other possibilities (matter/material of the heresy).

As this persisted in the Providence of this cross in the family, God had provided also many prophecies and apparitions that this crisis will happen, there are now, unfortunately, more divisions and turmoils in the body of the family, which have now developed into different things of understandings, sayings, and beliefs from the original Faith and peace that was in that family to begin with. However, everyone does want the health of the body and membership of the family for the glory of God.

In this cross that continues for many years, there now comes a question in the family by some members: is the father still the father? The obvious to this question is: of course he is; he is the father. He is the father to still provide and govern the family. He still has the jurisdiction of authority to do so unless God removes him and replaces him with another (foster) father.

With this above example, it gives an understanding of today’s unprecedented crisis with speaking about the Pope. Like the father of the family, as with the Pope, the meaning and example is the same.

The Pope is “teaching” something different to that Faith in his private capacity of the "supernatural life", while in the Chair of his position, like Aaron and the golden calf, Caiaphas condemning Jesus Christ to death, Solomon and his permission of ecuмenical groves to be built to false gods and worship, and many others who had "taught" things contrary to that Faith, but they are still members of that governing capacity, with authority, and jurisdiction.

So is the Pope the Pope? Yes. He may have erred in his private capacity in the “supernatural life” like the father in his position; he is none the less, still the member of government, authority, and jurisdiction until God chooses to remove him.

I hope this helps to understand the meaning of the body of membership and what Archbishop Lefebvre had also stood up for in principle.

When others are ready, we can go to the next level of understanding the question of: is he a “Formal” heretic or not?

God bless.

RJS · « **Reply #33 on:** February 06, 2013, 02:06:55 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: RJS
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.

Please explain where Bellarmine agrees that a pope-heretic remains pope.

This is precisely why I pointed out the distinction between the pope being a heretic as a private teacher and that of a pope being a heretic in his official capacity as Vicar of Christ. The latter is impossible.

SJB,

The distinction you are making is limited to the realm of acting (e.g. can a pope teach heresy only in private, or can he teach heresy in his official capacity as pope). The questions we are discussing, however, deals with the realm of being (e.g. if a pope falls into heresy and loses the faith, does he remain head of the Church; or if a pope openly leaves the Church, does he remain head of the Church). The question is not what can a pope do or not do, but at what point would he cease to be pope. Your point is a good one as well, and we can discuss it too, but that is a separate question.

Regarding the realm of being, we need to address two points: Firstly, whether a pope who falls into heresy and loses the faith (internally) ceases to be the head of the Church. The second question is whether or not a pope who publicly defects from the Faith - for example, leaving the Church and joining a heretical sect – (thereby becoming a manifest heretic), ceases to be the head of the Church. According to Bellarmine, a pope who becomes a manifest heretic does cease to be pope, but keep in mind that falling into heresy and losing the faith does not equate to being a manifest heretic. A pope who is an occult heretic has also lost the faith, yet he remains externally united to the Church and retains his jurisdiction. Here’s the pertinent section from Bellarmine.

Quote

Bellarmine: “Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: "He would not be able to retain the episcopate, and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church."

“According to what St. Cyprian affirms in this passage, even had Novatian been the true and legitimate Pope, he would have automatically fallen from the pontificate, if he separated himself from the Church.

“This is the opinion of great recent doctors, as John Driedo (lib. 4 de Script. et dogmat. Eccles., cap. 2, par. 2, sent. 2), who teaches that only they separate themselves from the Church who are expelled, like the excommunicated, and those who depart by themselves from her or oppose her, as heretics and schismatics. And in his seventh affirmation, he maintains that in those who turn away from the Church, there remains absolutely no spiritual power over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano says the same (lib. 4 de loc., cap. 2), teaching that heretics are neither parts nor members of the Church, and that it cannot even be conceived that anyone could be head and Pope, without being member and part (cap. ult. ad argument. 12). And he teaches in the same place, in plain words, that occult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members, and that 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 foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; 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; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved.” (END)

Regarding this point, Garrigou-Lagrange elaborates. He wrote:

Quote

Garrigou-Lagrange: “St. Robert Bellarmine's objection. The pope who becomes a secret heretic is still an actual member of the Church, for he is still the head of the Church, as Cajetan, Cano, Suarez, and others teach.
“Reply. 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. 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.”

So, the question is whether or not a pope who loses the faith, and is thereby cut off from the mystical body of Christ, can retain jurisdiction as head of the Church. The answer to that question is yes. A further question we may want to discuss is “what constitutes manifest heresy”.

The question you raised was a different one altogether.

Ambrose · « **Reply #34 on:** February 06, 2013, 02:17:24 PM »

Machabees wrote:

Quote

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, Jєω, 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.]

(your words in brackets)

I agree with you that the indelible mark cannot be removed. I also believe that the indelible mark is the mark of a Catholic, but that does not mean one is still a member of the Church. Perhaps you mean that and we are not using the same terms.

What I am confused about is when you say what I said is "false." Do you believe that the indelible mark from baptism makes it impossible for one to sever oneself from the Church? That is what it appears you are saying, but as I said this may be a matter of not using the same terms.

I also understand that one cannot baptize twice. You and I both agree, as we must that one of the effects of Baptism is the indelible mark. There is no disagreement on this point.

I stand by my initial statement that the "indelible mark does not mean that one is always a Catholic." Those who are baptized but who are outside of the Church, (the ark of salvation), have the indelible mark, but they outside the Church, they are not members of the Church. Perhaps you took that to mean that I thought that if one fell from the Church, that the mark was removed, but I did not say or imply that.

The indelible mark will remain even in the damned, but the Catholic Church in any of its three parts, Militant, Suffering or Triumphant, does not exist in Hell. The Indelible mark will remain in the damned one which increases their shame.

If you want to learn more about the nature of the indelible mark, I would urge you to read St. Thomas on this point: http://www.catholictheology.info/summa-theologica/summa-part3.php?q=457

I hope this helps to clarify. God bless.

Machabees · « **Reply #35 on:** February 06, 2013, 02:21:18 PM »

Quote from: RJS

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.

RJs, you are quite on top of things.

Your addition again is opportune to the beginning of the next needed level: is the Pope a “Formal” heretic or not?

When others are ready in respect of understanding, unfortunately we all may not agree, God will Provide this unity to come, none the less, you brought in a very valuable point.

We could wait for others in this next question, or address it simultaneously.

For myself, I'm ready and open for the two-separate questions.

God bless.

Machabees · « **Reply #36 on:** February 06, 2013, 03:02:28 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Machabees wrote:
Quote

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.]
(Your words in brackets)

We agree on this, but let us be clear on the terms here. Mortal sin, if unrepented at death will lead to damnation. But, as long as a Catholic is alive, mortal sin does not sever one from their membership in the Church. Heresy, schism and excommunication sever one from the Church, but not any mortal sin other than these. We are here talking of membership in the Church, which is what the Catechism is referring to.

As the Roman Catechism states;

Quote
Those Who Are Not Members Of The Church

Hence there are but three classes of persons excluded from the Church's pale: infidels, heretics and schismatics, and excommunicated persons. Infidels are outside the Church because they never belonged to, and never knew the Church, and were never made partakers of any of her Sacraments. Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted. It is not, however, to be denied that they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, inasmuch as they may be called before her tribunals, punished and anathematised. Finally, excommunicated persons are not members of the Church, because they have been cut off by her sentence from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent.

But with regard to the rest, however wicked and evil they may be, it is certain that they still belong to the Church: Of this the faithful are frequently to be reminded, in order to be convinced that, were even the lives of her ministers debased by crime, they are still within the Church, and therefore lose nothing of their power.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html

Ambrose,

Thanks for the clarifications.

Perhaps in your overall theme you were speaking of a "member", your #3 and #4 question did not address nor speak of membership in your post. So I answered them as they were written:

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.

In respect to mortal sin a member:

If one is in mortal sin, one loses charity (habitual/sanctifying grace), however, he still receives "actual" grace to move him to repent; of which he is still a member of the Church. While in that state of unrepented mortal sin, as much as our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament is wanting to convert him, there is no salvation God can give to "force" him to convert. Therefore, by the nature of that unrepented mortal sin, it is a severance of "salvation" by itself, and at death will lead to damnation; and becomes a probate.

God bless.

RJS · « **Reply #37 on:** February 06, 2013, 03:22:47 PM »

Quote from: Machabees

Quote from: RJS
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.

RJs, you are quite on top of things.

Your addition again is opportune to the beginning of the next needed level: is the Pope a “Formal” heretic or not?

Yes, that is the next logical question. But when answering, we need to make a further distincion: we need to distinguish between formal heresy in the internal forum, and formal heresy in the external forum. Formal heresy in the interrnal forum is the internal sin of heresy, which does not cause a Bishop to lose his jurisdiction. Formal heresy in the external forum does cause a Bishop to lose his jurisdiction, since a formal heretic in the external forum is in no way a member of the Church. The question is, at what point would a pope become a formal heretic in the external forum? I'll let you begin.

Ambrose · « **Reply #38 on:** February 06, 2013, 03:28:37 PM »

Machabees wrote:

Quote

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.]

Without getting into the dispute about whether an occult heretic is a member of the Church, let us keep this on a public defection from the Faith. It is an indisputable fact of our Faith that when one publicly and pertinaciously denies a teaching of the Church that he by that fact ceases to be a member of the Church.

I am well aware of the dispute about occult heresy, but I did qualify what I wrote when I said "public." I also agree that when making a judgment about another Catholic on whether he is a pertinacious public heretic, one must be very slow and cautious about making such a judgment giving the suspected person every chance to show his innocence.

I also believe that if times were normal, and the hierarchy was properly functioning that these matters would be resolved by those in authority, and our main duty as laypeople would be to report the heretic to our local bishop. He would then take it from there. But, we are not in normal times, which is why we are discussing this in the first place. Most of those who currently reject the heresies of Vatican II are vagus bishops and priests and laypeople. The bishops who have kept the Faith and have habitual jurisdiction appear to be doing nothing to end this crisis.

I agree with you you wrote about cause and effect, but I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. When one is a (public) heretic, they are not professing the Catholic Faith, therefore one cannot be a Catholic heretic. In order to be a Catholic one must profess the true Faith. A Catholic cannot deviate in even one point.

SJB · « **Reply #39 on:** February 06, 2013, 06:05:08 PM »

Quote from: RJS

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.

This is incorrect.

Quote from: Bellarmine

"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction ...

SJB · « **Reply #40 on:** February 06, 2013, 08:12:11 PM »

Quote from: RJS

According to Bellarmine, a pope who becomes a manifest heretic does cease to be pope, but keep in mind that falling into heresy and losing the faith does not equate to being a manifest heretic. A pope who is an occult heretic has also lost the faith, yet he remains externally united to the Church and retains his jurisdiction. Here’s the pertinent section from Bellarmine.

Quote from: Bellarmine

"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction ...

So following RJS's reasoning, we must believe an occult heretic (a heretic not manifest) is not one who can be in any way judged by the Church. He remains in power, still a member of the Church, yet unable to removed (judged by the Church.)

Why would he need to be removed if he was occult or hidden? How could anybody make an accusation of occult heresy?

RJS, I think the problem with your general approach is that you misunderstand and confuse at various times and in different ways, manifest and occult heresy.

Actually becoming a manifest heretic is not due to a judgment of the Church, it is what allows a pope to be judged and punished by the Church, as Bellarmine teaches.

RJS · « **Reply #41 on:** February 06, 2013, 08:29:20 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: RJS
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.

This is incorrect.

Quote from: Bellarmine
"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction ...

SJB,

Being guilty of the sin of heresy and losing the faith is not equivalent to being a manifest heretic. If you don't understand that, the citations I provided from Garrigou-Lagrange, Suarez, and Bioux will not make sense. If you do understand that point, the quotes may begin to make sense.

RJS · « **Reply #42 on:** February 06, 2013, 08:37:12 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: RJS
According to Bellarmine, a pope who becomes a manifest heretic does cease to be pope, but keep in mind that falling into heresy and losing the faith does not equate to being a manifest heretic. A pope who is an occult heretic has also lost the faith, yet he remains externally united to the Church and retains his jurisdiction. Here’s the pertinent section from Bellarmine.

Quote from: Bellarmine
"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction ...

So following RJS's reasoning, we must believe an occult heretic (a heretic not manifest) is not one who can be in any way judged by the Church. He remains in power, still a member of the Church, yet unable to removed (judged by the Church.)

Why would he need to be removed if he was occult or hidden? How could anybody make an accusation of occult heresy?

The reason for establising the point is to show that the sin of heresy and consequent loss of faith does not, of itself, cause a pope to lose his office. the reason it is necessary to make this point is because most sedevacantists are mistaken on this point, which then leads them to draw false conclusions.

Quote from:

RJS, I think the problem with your general approach is that you misunderstand and confuse at various times and in different ways, manifest and occult heresy.

Actually becoming a manifest heretic is not due to a judgment of the Church, it is what allows a pope to be judged and punished by the Church, as Bellarmine teaches.

If the prelate in question does not openly leave the Church, in your opinion what would constitute a manifest heretic? And who gets to make the judgment that a pope who has not openly left the Church qualifies as a manifest heretic? Is such a judgment left to the opinion of each individual laymen, or is the judgment the responsibility of the proper ecclesiastical authorities? Please provide a source to back up your statement.

RJS · « **Reply #43 on:** February 06, 2013, 08:42:09 PM »

I'm not sure what happened to the pervioust. I'll try to repost it.

Quote from: SJB

So following RJS's reasoning, we must believe an occult heretic (a heretic not manifest) is not one who can be in any way judged by the Church. He remains in power, still a member of the Church, yet unable to removed (judged by the Church.)

Why would he need to be removed if he was occult or hidden? How could anybody make an accusation of occult heresy?

The reason for establising the point is to show that the sin of heresy and consequent loss of faith does not, of itself, cause a pope to lose his office. the reason it is necessary to make this point is because most sedevacantists are mistaken on this point, which then leads them to draw false conclusions.

Quote from: SJB

RJS, I think the problem with your general approach is that you misunderstand and confuse at various times and in different ways, manifest and occult heresy.

Actually becoming a manifest heretic is not due to a judgment of the Church, it is what allows a pope to be judged and punished by the Church, as Bellarmine teaches.

If the prelate in question does not openly leave the Church, in your opinion what would constitute a manifest heretic? And who gets to make the judgment that a pope who has not openly left the Church qualifies as a manifest heretic? Is such a judgment left to the opinion of each individual laymen, or is the judgment the responsibility of the proper ecclesiastical authorities? Please provide a source to back up your statement.

SJB · « **Reply #44 on:** February 06, 2013, 08:50:20 PM »

Quote from: RJS

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: RJS
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.

This is incorrect.

Quote from: Bellarmine
"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction ...

SJB,

Being guilty of the sin of heresy and losing the faith is not equivalent to being a manifest heretic. If you don't understand that, the citations I provided from Garrigou-Lagrange, Suarez, and Bioux will not make sense. If you do understand that point, the quotes may begin to make sense.

Of course, a man can be guilty of the sin heresy and lose the Faith and without being a manifest heretic. The man is an occult heretic.

The crime of heresy is always necessarily external. It is the crime of heresy that affects one's membership in the Church. When is heresy a crime? When it is public. Here is Bouscaren:

Quote from: Bouscaren

Canon 2197 defines the various degrees of publicity.

"Classification as to Publicity. A crime is:

"1. Public, if it is already commonly known or the circuмstances are such as to lead to the conclusion that it can and will easily become so;

"2. Notorious in law, after judgment by a competent judge which has become res iudicata (cf. c. 1902), or after confession by the culprit in open court according to canon 1750;

"3. Notorious in fact, if it is publicly known and was committed under such circuмstances that no maneuver can conceal nor any legal defense excuse it;

"4. Occult, if not public; materially occult if the crime itself is hidden, formally occult if its imputability is hidden.