Author Topic: About Fr. Pfeiffer "outstanding" sermon, the facts (Read 8485 times)

Louis · « **Reply #30 on:** May 13, 2014, 05:44:34 PM »

Quote

Is that statement true or not?

"Pope Liberius endangered the Faith by condemning St Athanasius and by backing Arian bishops in the East"

Because if it is true, the conclusion "For a few moments the Church’s indefectibility went not through the Pope but through his seeming adversary
", seems to be obvious, no matter what we ready in the Greek Menology.

Thank you Guga for making me search for docuмents in English. In French we have plenty of them. The answer is NO, Pope Saint Liberius never endangered the Faith by condemning Saint Athanasius because Saint Liberius never condemned him but defended him into exile.

I found an article from The American Catholic Quarterly Review volume 8 (1883). So, it is after the Vatican Council (1870), when in the 1860's Pius IX ordered a vast search for proof and docuмents to refute the Gallicans and antinfabilists historical calumnies and lies. Here is the passage:

"When Eusebius, the eunuch sent by the Emperor to tempt the Pope with gold, received no better reception than Simon Magus, who tempted Peter, he resorted to threats. The interview thereupon ended, and the Pope replied to the threats by letter as follows :

"You think to force me to subscribe to the condemnation of the Patriarch of Alexandria. How can I? Three consecutive councils, one of which represented the universal episcopate, have recognized, verified, and proclaimed the innocence of Athanasius. He was present. We ourselves have heard all the calumnies with which they would crush him peremptorily refuted. We have admitted him to our communion We have pledged him the most tender affection; and now that he is absent, persecuted, proscribed, are we to hurl an anathema against him? No! such is not the rule of the ecclesiastical canons, nor the tradition of the blessed and great Apostle Peter, which our predecessors have transmitted to us. The Emperor, you say, wishes for peace; let him commence by recalling the cruel edicts he has launched against the Patriarch; let him set Athanasius at liberty, and place him firmly in his See." Hist. Arian., No.36.

Language like this was not calculated to appease an Emperor. The Gesta Liberii, a scroll lately discovered, tells us that for a time the Pontiff retired to the catacomb of Noella, in the Via Salaria, a voluntary exile; but his retreat was discovered, and he was led to Milan, where the Emperor held the following dialogue with him, reported in substance both by Athanasius and Theodoret.

Said the Emperor: "As you are Bishop of our city we exhort you to reject the communion of Athanasius. The world has judged him," etc.

Liberius: "Sir, ecclesiastical judgments must be just. Establish a tribunal, . . . . and, if he be found guilty, judgment will be pronounced. . . . We cannot condemn a man who has not been tried."

Emperor: "The world has condemned his impiety."

Liberius: "Those who subscribed his condemnation have not seen all that passed. The glory you promise them, or the punishment you threaten, has influenced them."

Emperor: "What do you mean by the words glory and punishment?"

Liberius: "Those who love not the glory of God and prefer your favors, have condemned him without trial. This is unworthy of Christians."

Emperor: "He has been judged by the Council of Tyre, where he was present."

Liberius: "Not in his presence but after his withdrawal." (Here a bishop, who was by, put in that Liberius wished to boast on his return to Rome, that he had baffled the Emperor.)

Emperor: "What do you account yourself in the world to raise yourself alone to disturb the earth?"

Liberius: "Even if I were alone the cause of the faith would not fall." . . . . .

Emperor: "What has been once decreed cannot be reversed. The judgment of the majority of the bishops must decide, and you are the only one attached to this wretch."

Liberius: "Sir, we have never heard that, in the absence of the accused, a judge would consider him a wretch, as if he were his particular enemy."

Emperor: "He has offended the world in general, me in particular. . . . I will send you back to Rome if you embrace the communion of the Churches. Yield for peace sake; subscribe, and return to Rome?"

Liberius: "I have already bid adieu to my brethren in Rome."

Emperor "You will have three days to consider," etc. . . .

Liberius: "Three days nor three months will not change my resolution. Send me where you like."

Here is language worthy of a Pope. Who can imagine this hero yielding cringingly afterwards to this very Emperor and retracting these sublime words? But if the Pope had prevaricated and condemned Athanasius, of what use would it have been for the latter to publish this interview? Both Athanasius and the Arian faction, and the whole world, in fact, knew the importance of having the Roman Bishop on their side. Hence the efforts made around to secure his subscription. Hence the forgeries of Arians, so unjust to Liberius. Hence, too, the History and other works written by the Bishop of Alexandria. It would, therefore, have been doubly absurd for Athanasius to hope for favor claiming the Bishop of Rome's suffrage, if that suffrage had been reversed, and himself cut off from the Pope's communion."

PP. 542-543

http://books.google.ca/books?id=a5INAQAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Louis · « **Reply #31 on:** May 18, 2014, 11:51:36 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

That the pope can err while not defining in matters of faith and morals for the universal Church, and that he may be resisted when he seeks to impose his error on the faithful, is something saints and theologians have taught. St Bellarmine, a favorite of the sedecavantists, even attest to this fact.

One citation will suffice as an example, a passage from St. Robert Bellarmine: “Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist the one who attacks the soul or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church . I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed” ( De Romano Pontifice , Lib . II, Ch. 29).

This is the conclusion of Saint Robert Bellarmine (1610) on a supposed heretical Pope:

"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction." De Romano Pontifice. II, Ch.30

The passage before Ch. 29 was not about a possible heretic Pope but about gallicanism errors.

Cantarella · « **Reply #32 on:** May 18, 2014, 12:10:04 PM »

Quote from: St Bellarmine

"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church.

First, notice in this cited statement of St. Bellarmine, that it is the Church Herself that judges and punishes the Pope, not the common layman.

Second, St. Bellarmine does not represent the binding authority of the Church. The truth is that there is not unanimity of opinion among the theologians about what happens should a Pope fall into heresy. Even if there were unanimity, this opinion still would not have infallibility. Infallibility resides only in the extraordinary pontifical teachings or in the ordinary pontifical teachings when unanimous, and also in episcopal teachings throughout the centuries when they are unanimous.

claudel · « **Reply #33 on:** May 18, 2014, 01:41:16 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

First, notice in this cited statement of St. Bellarmine, that it is the Church Herself that judges and punishes the Pope, not the common layman.

Second, St. Bellarmine does not represent the binding authority of the Church. The truth is that there is not unanimity of opinion among the theologians about what happens should a Pope fall into heresy. Even if there were unanimity, this opinion still would not have infallibility. Infallibility resides only in the extraordinary pontifical teachings or in the ordinary pontifical teachings when unanimous, and also in episcopal teachings throughout the centuries when they are unanimous.

Shame on you, Cantarella, for implying that CI's growing mob of sedevacantists is made up merely of common laymen! Some of them have a direct line to the Holy Ghost; the rest of them know a guy (or a website) with a direct line to the Holy Ghost. Why, we can read fifty or so new comments every single day that state, almost in so many words, that that's how Divine revelation works to counteract a bum like Humble Frank!

Put otherwise, brava for a truly laudable comment.

To speak more plainly, you have also squarely hit the mark about the great Bellarmine. The saint's ears must be burning in heaven when he hears his name used every day as a cat-o'-nine-tails to flog those among us who missed the consecration ceremony wherein a hundred or so of CI's SV commenters were granted the Apostolic status once reserved only to the post-Resurrection Twelve, plus the slightly later additions of Paul and Barnabas.

Besides, if Aquinas could correct and indeed reject the opinions of Augustine, as he did rather more than once, why should virtually the only comment of Bellarmine's that interests the SV members here be accorded the status of irreformable doctrine?
__________________________

On the matter of Pope Liberius—not Saint Liberius!—it is odd that no one has yet referred to the thoughtful article by a certain John Chapman in the old Catholic Encyclopedia. One of its principal virtues is that it lays out the reasons for the conflicting opinions on that pope's actions vis-à-vis Arianism and Saint Athanasius. Professor Chapman clearly inclines to a view as friendly to Liberius as Louis's, but he also states quite plainly that the question "has been and can be freely debated among Catholics."

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #34 on:** May 18, 2014, 01:51:21 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: St Bellarmine

"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church.

First, notice in this cited statement of St. Bellarmine, that it is the Church Herself that judges and punishes the Pope, not the common layman.

Second, St. Bellarmine does not represent the binding authority of the Church. The truth is that there is not unanimity of opinion among the theologians about what happens should a Pope fall into heresy. Even if there were unanimity, this opinion still would not have infallibility. Infallibility resides only in the extraordinary pontifical teachings or in the ordinary pontifical teachings when unanimous, and also in episcopal teachings throughout the centuries when they are unanimous.

More importantly, the only way a heretic is "manifest" without the judgment of the Church is by self-admission.

Last I checked, none of the recent popes have admitted to knowing themselves to be heretics.

So to rely on St. Bellarmine's quote doesn't get them very far.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #35 on:** May 18, 2014, 02:04:23 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: St Bellarmine

"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church.

First, notice in this cited statement of St. Bellarmine, that it is the Church Herself that judges and punishes the Pope, not the common layman.

Second, St. Bellarmine does not represent the binding authority of the Church. The truth is that there is not unanimity of opinion among the theologians about what happens should a Pope fall into heresy. Even if there were unanimity, this opinion still would not have infallibility. Infallibility resides only in the extraordinary pontifical teachings or in the ordinary pontifical teachings when unanimous, and also in episcopal teachings throughout the centuries when they are unanimous.

More importantly, the only way a heretic is "manifest" without the judgment of the Church is by self-admission.

Last I checked, none of the recent popes have admitted to knowing themselves to be heretics.

So to rely on St. Bellarmine's quote doesn't get them very far.

Source?

Manifest and self admitting are two different things. Something can be manifest without the offender admitting to the crime; that doesn't make what is manifest "unmanifest."

JPaul · « **Reply #36 on:** May 18, 2014, 02:30:04 PM »

Quote

Manifest

adjective

Readily perceived by the eye or the understanding; evident; obvious; apparent; plain: a manifest error.

verb (used with object)

to make clear or evident to the eye or the understanding; show plainly: He manifested his approval with a hearty laugh.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #37 on:** May 18, 2014, 03:03:39 PM »

Excerpted from this discussion, with the authorities relied upon for the opinion being St. Robert Bellarmine and Suarez:

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Bellarmine-and-Suarez-on-The-Question-of-a-Heretical-Pope

Manifest Heresy

Another important point that needs clarification is what St. Bellarmine meant by the term “manifest heretic”. When he said “a pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be pope”, he was not referring merely to a Pope that has made materially heretical statements, or to a Pope who has given reason to believe he has lost the faith; manifest heresy requires something more: since heresy, properly so-called, requires pertinacity in the will (not simply an error in the intellect), in order for a person who has made materially heretical statements to be considered formally heretical in the external forum, pertinacity in the will would also have to be manifest. Obviously, if a Pope publicly defected from the Faith by leaving the Church, or by publicly admitting that he rejects a defined dogma, this, in and of itself, would suffice to demonstrate pertinacity in the external forum. But without such an open admission of guilt, there would have to be another way to demonstrate that he was manifestly obstinate in his position. The other way, according to St. Bellarmine, is for the Pope to remain obstinate after two warnings. Only then would pertinacity be sufficiently demonstrated to render the Pope a manifest heretic. St. Bellarmine bases this on [mistakenly said “in”] the authority of St. Paul.

“In the first place” wrote Bellarmine, “it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is ‘ipso facto’ deposed. The argument from authority is based on Saint Paul, who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate – which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence (…) Therefore… 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.” (6)
As we can see, according to Bellarmine a manifest heretic is one who remains obstinate “after two warnings”. Such manifest obstinancy reveals pertinacity in the will, which is necessary for a materially heretical statement to qualify as formal heresy in the external forum. By remaining obstinate after a solemn and public warning, the Pope would, in a sense, pass judgment upon himself, thereby showing himself to be a heretic properly so-called. It is for this reason, according to Bellarmine, that the Pope – “who judges all and is judged by no one” – can himself be judged and punished by the Church.

But the question arises: who would have the authority to issue a solemn and public warning to the Pope? The eminent eighteenth century Italian theologian, Father Pietro Ballerini, addressed this very point. He wrote: “The Cardinals, who are his counselors, can do this; or the Roman Clergy, or the Roman Synod, if, being met, they judge this opportune”. Then, after citing St. Paul’s letter to Titus (the same portion St. Bellarmine cited as his authority), Fr. Ballerini added:

“For the person who, admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or public dogma - not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity - this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such form that now no declaration or sentence of any one whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church. (…) Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, maintained himself hardened in heresy and openly turned himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him. Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made known to all the Church, making clear that by his own will be had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church, and that in a certain way he had abdicated the Pontificate, which no one holds or can hold if he does not belong to the Church”. (Italics added) (7)

By remaining obstinate after two public warnings, issued by the proper authorities, the Pope would, as Fr. Ballerini said, pronounce sentence “upon himself”, thereby “making it clear that by his own will he had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church” and, in a certain way, “abdicated the Pontificate”.

hugeman · « **Reply #38 on:** May 18, 2014, 10:16:14 PM »

In the middle of 2012 ( I believe), six Orthodox Ukrainain Catholic Bishops
(they are in union with Rome) of LVOV publicly warned Benedict XVI that he was a manifest heretic, and warned him that, if he did not adjure his heresies ( which they listed some of), then he would be, within a set amount of time, placing himself outside the Catholic faith as an excommunicated person, with no right or title to any position within the Catholic Church.

Needless to say, Ratzinger did not heed the public warning and monition. The six Bishops, thereupon, declared that benedict XVI excommunicated himself, by his open, notorious, willful and manifest heresies, and lost all power of his office.

When I showed this report to Msgr. deMallerais in New Jersey, his first comment was "I've never heard of them." So, I left him the reports. The next day, I asked him about the bishops' actions, and his response was "oh-- I threw that away-- they are Orthodox!"

Well DUH!

So, these priests ( many of them) and these bishops know they are playing fast and loose with the truth. they want to keep the faithful uninformed only to hold onto their own self importance. It is becoming more and more clear, that their battle has little, if anything , to do with the salvation of souls-- it has only to do with kingdom building.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #39 on:** May 18, 2014, 11:00:40 PM »

Quote from: hugeman

In the middle of 2012 ( I believe), six Orthodox Ukrainain Catholic Bishops
(they are in union with Rome) of LVOV publicly warned Benedict XVI that he was a manifest heretic, and warned him that, if he did not adjure his heresies ( which they listed some of), then he would be, within a set amount of time, placing himself outside the Catholic faith as an excommunicated person, with no right or title to any position within the Catholic Church.

Needless to say, Ratzinger did not heed the public warning and monition. The six Bishops, thereupon, declared that benedict XVI excommunicated himself, by his open, notorious, willful and manifest heresies, and lost all power of his office.

When I showed this report to Msgr. deMallerais in New Jersey, his first comment was "I've never heard of them." So, I left him the reports. The next day, I asked him about the bishops' actions, and his response was "oh-- I threw that away-- they are Orthodox!"

Well DUH!

So, these priests ( many of them) and these bishops know they are playing fast and loose with the truth. they want to keep the faithful uninformed only to hold onto their own self importance. It is becoming more and more clear, that their battle has little, if anything , to do with the salvation of souls-- it has only to do with kingdom building.

I recall reading about these Ukraine bishops from Lvov, and I went to their website at the time, and I shared some of this information with knowledgeable Catholics I knew at the time, and they had the same response as that you have described +TdM having, hugeman, that "They're Orthodox, so why should we care what they think or do?"

I couldn't find anything that clearly showed these Ukrainian bishops to be "Orthodox" insofar as their denying defined dogmas of the Church such as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Our Lady or papal infallibility.

In fact, on the surface, why would they be going through this process of public announcement and manifestation of pertinacity, concluding that Benedict XVI would therefore be "placing himself outside the Catholic faith as an excommunicated person, with no right or title to any position within the Catholic Church," if they HAD NO BELIEF IN THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE?

Seeing this come up now, the question remains as I understand this -- that it could very well be, that our Catholic priests and Bishop Tissier de Mallerais are making a mistake by saying "they're Orthodox" when perhaps their "Orthodoxy" is defined by the fact that they made this proclamation of the manifest heresy of Benedict XVI!

Do you see the subtle twist going on? I'm wondering if their "Orthodoxy" has nothing to do with defined dogmas, and everything to do with the manifest heresy of recent popes -- If they were Americans we'd say they were 'sedevacantists', but since they're Ukrainians, we say "THEY'RE ORTHODOX!"

What a world!!

One of the priests I asked about this is most definitive regarding the exclusion of the Orthodox from the Church since they deny defined dogma (papal supremacy). PLUS, he acknowledges that Benedict XVI is a Modernist whose heresies of fact which were published in books long before he was elected to the papacy, remain, and "Pope Emeritus Benedict" has never abjured his errors.

.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #40 on:** May 18, 2014, 11:25:39 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Excerpted from this discussion, with the authorities relied upon for the opinion being St. Robert Bellarmine and Suarez:

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Bellarmine-and-Suarez-on-The-Question-of-a-Heretical-Pope

Manifest Heresy

in order for a person who has made materially heretical statements to be considered formally heretical in the external forum, pertinacity in the will would also have to be manifest. Obviously, if a Pope publicly defected from the Faith by leaving the Church, or by publicly admitting that he rejects a defined dogma, this, in and of itself, would suffice to demonstrate pertinacity in the external forum. But without such an open admission of guilt, there would have to be another way to demonstrate that he was manifestly obstinate in his position.

...

By remaining obstinate after two public warnings, issued by the proper authorities, the Pope would, as Fr. Ballerini said, pronounce sentence “upon himself”, thereby “making it clear that by his own will he had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church” and, in a certain way, “abdicated the Pontificate”.

The bold is Siscoe's creation, what he quotes doesn't support it and neither does Ballerini support Siscoe's attempt not to prove sedevacantism FALSE, but to prove it unlawful or otherwise unapproachable. You realize this, yes? Siscoe's article never once touches on whether or not these men are popes, but focuses entirely on trying prove that we can't SAY they aren't, regardless of whether or not they are or aren't. In other words, keep the truth to yourself :)

Admonitions are not necessary to determine that a heretic is manifest (history shows that even the Church does not always admonish before she condemns), and they certainly aren't restricted only to members of the hierarchy for them to be "valid" admonitions. Ballerini himself says this. Siscoe is an embarrassment to right-thinking. His article is like a TV dinner, packaged up to sate the very specific needs of a very specific audience and prepared with no regard for the purpose of consumption.