Apart from the fact that Sisco and Salsa have been completely discredited, I personally have an opinion that's in between the two major schools of thought and follows most closely that held by John of St. Thomas. Father Chazal went that way also, and I consider his position, and that of Father Ringrose, to be the most reasonable and the most Catholic of them all.
| (https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Dk8KBHnJdas/V-baBu3fcEI/AAAAAAAAAmg/C_V_ciXDby4QRmhqcGwBZ_66dWxRuysWgCLcB/s1600/Bellarmine%2Bpicture.png) (https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Dk8KBHnJdas/V-baBu3fcEI/AAAAAAAAAmg/C_V_ciXDby4QRmhqcGwBZ_66dWxRuysWgCLcB/s1600/Bellarmine%2Bpicture.png) |
| St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J. |
| (https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NvGFuiWS8Sc/V-baOY7LWqI/AAAAAAAAAmk/MT1A4gu5Z9YnOXU9J1T3HfUnDhHoH6C4QCLcB/s1600/Kramer%2Bhead%2Bshot.jpg) (https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NvGFuiWS8Sc/V-baOY7LWqI/AAAAAAAAAmk/MT1A4gu5Z9YnOXU9J1T3HfUnDhHoH6C4QCLcB/s1600/Kramer%2Bhead%2Bshot.jpg) |
| Fr. Paul Leonard Kramer |
Notice Ladislaus is avoiding this thread, so that he does not have to address any of the content of the author he maligns (but is not capable of refuting)?
2) Your continued pretending that Fr. Chazal endorses your position is hilarious in light of his repeated explicit denials of same (but which clearly shows your own personal dishonesty);
Ladislaus now pretends he is declining to participate in this thread because the "discussion will go nowhere."
Ladislaus now pretends he is declining to participate in this thread because the "discussion will go nowhere."
This from a guy who can fire off 25 2-sentence posts in 20 minutes, and participates in multiple 100+ page threads all the way through?
Hardly believable.
The truth is that he is a windbag not capable of refuting the author he has no hesitation in maligning (despite not even reading his material)!!!
This, my friends, is the sedevacantist disposition.
At the present moment, there are 21 sedes hiding out in the other thread.
But on this one, where I am standing by, there are only 13, and none of them making any comments!
OK, I'll make you a deal:
I will log off until tomorrow after work.
That will give you enough time to read the author you sought to malign a priori.
Then, we will see what you have come up with.
Consider it a reprieve.
Meanwhile, the thread is down to 8 sedes, and not a single attempted rebuttal.
Quite a flattering compliment to a couple "discredited" authors!
There isn't a pretending. Fr. Chazal does endorse sedeprivationism. See here.
PS: He also pretends Fr. Chazal endorses sedevacantism (sedeprivationism), despite Fr. chazal's repeated denials of same. How does an honest man do that?
There isn't a pretending. Fr. Chazal does endorse sedeprivationism. See here.
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-fr-chazal-sedeprivationist/
Ladislaus now pretends he is declining to participate in this thread because the "discussion will go nowhere."Pot calling kettle black. You left your other thread when others questioned your so-called "moral unanimity" where you take the position that Francis' papacy must be legitimate because 99%+ of Novus Ordo adherents say he is Pope.
This from a guy who can fire off 25 2-sentence posts in 20 minutes, and participates in multiple 100+ page threads all the way through?
Hardly believable.
The truth is that he is a windbag not capable of refuting the author he has no hesitation in maligning (despite not even reading his material)!!!
This, my friends, is the sedevacantist disposition.
Why should they all follow you around CI like it's some cat-and-mouse game? Find SeanJohnson. Oops. He's not on this thread but moved over to that other one.If they don’t respond within minutes, they have lost the argument. By the way, you misspelled Salsa and Crisco.
Pot calling kettle black. You left your other thread when others questioned your so-called "moral unanimity" where you take the position that Francis' papacy must be legitimate because 99%+ of Novus Ordo adherents say he is Pope.
Incredible ignorance:Incredible dishonesty.
Meanwhile, the clock ticks on Ladislaus...Unanimous Consent of the FathersBy Steve Ray
Incredible dishonesty.
I am not talking about the meaning of "unanimous", but you knew that, didn't you!
Please do explain how adherents to a false religion, the Novus Ordo, have ANY say in whether a pope is legitimate.
Maybe we should ask the Muslims and Buddhists while we're at it.
Pathetic::facepalm: You are either a liar or delusional.
Roundly refuted, but proud and obstinate for the sake of a sectarian belief.
"He who hateth correction..."
:facepalm: You are either a liar or delusional.
In your previous post, you tried to evade being pinned to the wall by pretending you "weren't talking about the meaning of unanimous."Yes, I wrote that there, but I also followed up on your response to me about your so-called "moral unanimity". You failed to answer that question over there too...which was the point of my post here. Would you like me to pull that over here too, Smartypants?
Yet here you are in the other thread saying:
"Funny, I always thought the definition of unanimity meant agreement among all the people of a group....as in 100%."
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/15/
Which of us is delusional and a liar??
It's not that Sean is being dishonest. It's that Sean is a convert from the Novus ordo. So, he probably doesn't see the people from the Novus Ordo as non-Catholics. He believes that the Novus Ordo priests are true priests (I'm pretty sure) and that the Novus Ordo Mass gives good fruit. If not for Bishop Williamson and the whole emotion of the Resistance, I doubt he would be a Traditional Catholic. So I take what he says with a grain of salt, but admit that he is a good-willed Catholic and has God-given intelligence, I believe.That post was beneath you (I hope).
It's not that Sean is being dishonest. It's that Sean is a convert from the Novus ordo. So, he probably doesn't see the people from the Novus Ordo as non-Catholics. He believes that the Novus Ordo priests are true priests (I'm pretty sure) and that the Novus Ordo Mass gives good fruit. If not for Bishop Williamson and the whole emotion of the Resistance, I doubt he would be a Traditional Catholic. So I take what he says with a grain of salt, but admit that he is a good-willed Catholic and has God-given intelligence, I believe.I don't.
Yes, I wrote that there, but I also followed up on your response to me about your so-called "moral unanimity". You failed to answer that question over there too...which was the point of my post here. Would you like me to pull that over here too, Smartypants?
3.04 x 10 (-7) [pardon that I can't find exponents on my current keyboard] was something like the number of those who doubt the papacy of Francis. While I would argue that it is slightly more, it shouldn't matter. It has become universal in the Catholic Church. Mark my words, when Benedict passes from this earth you will see people in the diocese, Ecclesia Dei groups, the SSPX, the Resistance, CMRI and the SSPV that will claim sede vacante. Many do not believe that Bergoglio is pope. But here comes Mr. Sean Johnson who claims that the papacy of Francis is a dogmatic fact. Save me the trouble of commenting further and be honest. There is NO unanimity. Never was and is not. A blind man can see it.
"Funny, I always thought the definition of unanimity meant agreement among all the people of a group....as in 100%."
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/15/
Which of us is delusional and a liar??
3.04 x 10 (-7) [pardon that I can't find exponents on my current keyboard] was something like the number of those who doubt the papacy of Francis. While I would argue that it is slightly more, it shouldn't matter. It has become universal in the Catholic Church. Mark my words, when Benedict passes from this earth you will see people in the diocese, Ecclesia Dei groups, the SSPX, the Resistance, CMRI and the SSPV that will claim sede vacante. Many do not believe that Bergoglio is pope. But here comes Mr. Sean Johnson who claims that the papacy of Francis is a dogmatic fact. Save me the trouble of commenting further and be honest. There is NO unanimity. Never was and is not. A blind man can see it.
We can talk about anything on your mind, 2Vermont.I have no interest in chatting with dogmatic sedeplenist, anti-sedevacantists like yourself. All I'm interested in is revealing your hypocrisy when you whined about Ladislaus not returning to a thread. And I have.
I just note that what we WON'T talk about is how sedevacantists do not understand Bellarmine
and
You admitted to the only point about moral unanimity I care to defend.
That post was beneath you (I hope).I agree with you on some points and disagree on others. I never knew the Novus Ordo so I don't have that experience. If Bergoglio is the pope or not is not the most important issue in my life right now. It won't affect my Catholic Faith. Maybe he is not and maybe he is. I'm not willing to get all dogmatic on that issue because there is clearly positive doubt. Some sedes say I must resolve that doubt. Now some of the Resistance say I must never doubt. Ironically, the diocesan Eastern rites and some of the SSPX and SSPV will let me be. Resistance to what if you dogmatize the papacy of Bergoglio.
Within the last six hours, I left from Mass at a diocesan church. In fact, it was the diocesan church where I was baptized, though I have never attended the Novus Ordo Mass. Therefore, I have dabbled in the sede vacante and am contaminated. Brother Sean, I am far from being a sede vacantist. I just don't think that they are to be held as non-Catholics. These are times of crisis. They may be right. I maintain the position that if the priest does not offer the Novus Ordo and is a true Catholic priest not preaching or adhering to errors of Vatican 2 then one can in good conscious attend his Mass. Just trying to be Catholic and maintain the True Catholic Faith.
I would prefer you to say something along the lines of, "Since I started dabbling in sedevacantist chapels, I have come to see things their way."
I have no interest in chatting with dogmatic sedeplenist, anti-sedevacantists like yourself. All I'm interested in is revealing your hypocrisy when you whined about Ladislaus not returning to a thread. And I have.
Where the Sedevacantists have erred is by interpreting the ipso facto loss of office to be similar to an “ipso facto” latae sententiæ excommunication, which occurs automatically (or ipso facto), when one commits an offense that carries the penalty, without requiring an antecedent judgment by the Church. But this is not at all what Bellarmine and Suarez meant by the ipso facto loss of office. What they meant is that the ipso facto loss of office occurs after the Church judges thePopeimpostor to be a heretic and before any additional juridical sentence or excommunication (which differs from Cajetan’s opinion). In other words, after the Church establishes “the fact” that thePopeimpostor is a manifest heretic (who was never a legitimate successor of St. Peter), he, according to this opinion, is deemed to lose his office ipso facto
It is fixed now :)
As +Bellarmine rightly points out THERE HAS TO BE A PROCESS. There has to be order. There has to be an organized, authoritative decision by the Church on such an important matter as the pope.
“The fifth opinion is thus the true one: a manifestly heretical pope ceases by that very fact to be pope and head, even as he ceases by this reason to be a Christian and a member of the Body of the Church; and this is why he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the position of all the ancient fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction”
Childish.
Sorry, you have not.I never admitted to a lie...and I never lied.
All you have done this far (besides being cuaght in a lie which you admitted to), is avoided responding to the OP, and talked about pretty much everything except your favorite color in an attempt to diveret the conversation.
And what hypocrisy are you referring to:
I said I was ducking out on Ladislaus because I know in advance he (like yourself) will never admit your sect is based on a delusion stemming from selective quoting of Bellarmine, and have no desire to go tit for tat with him for anothere 100+ pages.
But I started this thread because the whole world knows I have him nailed to the wall for which he can have no comeback (and therefore no endless tot for tat).
Robert Bellarmine has clearly specified the two most important elements involved:
“The cardinals, when they create a Pontiff, exercise their authority, not on the pope as such, since he is not yet such, but on the matter, that is to say, on the person which they dispose in some way by the election in order that he might receive from God the form of the pontificate.”
These different statements allow us to precisely limit the elements which lead up to the “statement of a fact” provided by the Thesis of Cassiciacuм. The Thesis demonstrates that the occupant of the Apostolic Chair lacks that determination which is intrinsically linked to infallibility. This determination is of necessity “that which is communicated by God,” even though it is only by divine “assistance” that the Pope is infallible.
In other words, what the proof demonstrates is the absence of the function and the power of (infallibly) teaching, and along with this the absence of the supreme power of jurisdiction which is directly linked to the former. This is what Pontifical Authority, or the “Primacy of Peter,” considered formally, consists of. According to the phrase of St. Robert Bellarmine, it is the “form of the pontificate,” which is immediately communicated by God Himself. Finally, since what the occupant of the Apostolic Chair lacks is the “form” of the Pontificate, the determining and formal element which makes the Pope to be such, we say: “He is not formally the Pope.” This, then, is what directly and with certitude establishes the basis for the first part of the Thesis.
But the argument says nothing about the other determinants (such as the duration, such as would be logical) which also pertain to the Roman Pontiff. These antecedent determinations (to the form) involve at least his legitimate election and his acceptance of same (insofar as they are publicly manifest). St. Robert Bellarmine says that the person of the elected can be likened to the “matter,” and the election is like a disposition to the form of the Pontificate. And as every disposition is attached to a material cause, we say at the end of our first section that the person who occupies the Apostolic See remains materially a Pope. At this point we should positively affirm this because, quite simply, we have provided no element which permits us to sustain the contrary.
Here is my prediction:Prediction: Sean Johnson will still be the Grand Poobah no matter how many posts on this thread. He can never be proven wrong. He studies theology every waking moment. Except for Sundays when he is attending Mass and posting his irrefutable wisdom on CathInfo. And on weekdays when he is working. And on Saturdays when he is mowing the lawn. But other than that, he is studying only the best Catholic theology. Such as True Or False Pope. Because that is irrefutable theology by the most brilliant part-time lay theologians. Sean’s world! Sean’s world! Yeah! Cool!
When I return to this thread at about 5PM CST tomorrow:
Though it will have surpassed the 10 page mark, and eclipsed 150+ comments, not one single post will have been able to refute the OP, and consequently, the venom which will try to compensate for that inadequacy will reach all-time highs.
We will see...
Notice the sequence of events: First the Pope is judged and declared a heretic by the Church; then he is “ipso facto” deposed by Christ; lastly (after he is deposed by Christ) he is “judged and punished by the Church.”
Why this article presents Fr. Kramer as a sympathizer of sedevacantism?Because there exists a number of Catholics who hate sedevacantism with every bone in their body, and they have been able to look into the future to see that when Benedict dies a huge number of Catholics from all the many different groups will shout out from the top of their lungs: sede vacante!
That is far from the truth from what I know.
This is not the correct order of events. This is Bellarmine's order of events:You are correct Cantarella.
1) The impostor is "ipso facto" deposed by Christ.
2) He is then judged and declared a formal heretic by the Church
3) He is then punished by the Church.
“The fifth opinion is thus the true one: a manifestly heretical pope ceases by that very fact to be pope and head, even as he ceases by this reason to be a Christian and a member of the Body of the Church; and this is why he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the position of all the ancient fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction”Cantarella,
"Manifest heresy" is not something that can be judged by anyone outside of the Church officials. Many of you falsely assume that if a pope says something heretical multiple times or believes in heresy, therefore he is manifest.
That is not to say that they can make any juridical judgements, but only practical ones which have to do with their spiritual safety, (who they should avoid).Agree. Yet sedes would disagree because they think they can make juridical judgements outside and independent of Church authorities. Then they claim that everyone who doesn't agree with them in declaring pope x, y or z "manifest" is also a heretic since they are guilty by association. It's complete madness and out of control hubris.
Manifest, publicly: Saying the New Order mess.
Why this article presents Fr. Kramer as a sympathizer of sedevacantism?True, Fr. Kramer is NOT a sedevacantist as he believes Pope Benedict is the true Pope. Father has said that when Benedict dies, then there will be no pope until the Cardinals elect another Pope.
That is far from the truth from what I know.
Prediction: Sean Johnson will still be the Grand Poobah no matter how many posts on this thread. He can never be proven wrong. He studies theology every waking moment. Except for Sundays when he is attending Mass and posting his irrefutable wisdom on CathInfo. And on weekdays when he is working. And on Saturdays when he is mowing the lawn. But other than that, he is studying only the best Catholic theology. Such as True Or False Pope. Because that is irrefutable theology by the most brilliant part-time lay theologians. Sean’s world! Sean’s world! Yeah! Cool!
True, Fr. Kramer is NOT a sedevacantist as he believes Pope Benedict is the true Pope. Father has said that when Benedict dies, then there will be no pope until the Cardinals elect another Pope.why does he think Benedict is the Pope? Does he believe he was forced to abdicate against his will?
For those that may be interested into learning the other side of the argument against Siscoe and Salza, see here:
Defection from the Faith and the Church - Faith, Heresy, and the Loss of Office - An Exposé of the Heresy of John Salza and Robert Siscoe Part I
http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/03/the-hammer-destroys-heretics-fr-kramers.html (http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/03/the-hammer-destroys-heretics-fr-kramers.html)
http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/03/apostolica-sedes-nemine-iudicatur.html (http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/03/apostolica-sedes-nemine-iudicatur.html)
http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/03/from-clear-as-summer-sun-file-fr-kramer.html (http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/03/from-clear-as-summer-sun-file-fr-kramer.html)
why does he think Benedict is the Pope? Does he believe he was forced to abdicate against his will?That's typically what the Resignationists believe.
I said I was ducking out on Ladislaus because I know in advance he (like yourself) will never admit your sect is based on a delusion stemming from selective quoting of Bellarmine, ...
True, Fr. Kramer is NOT a sedevacantist as he believes Pope Benedict is the true Pope. Father has said that when Benedict dies, then there will be no pope until the Cardinals elect another Pope.
For those that may be interested into learning the other side of the argument against Siscoe and Salza, see here:
Defection from the Faith and the Church - Faith, Heresy, and the Loss of Office - An Exposé of the Heresy of John Salza and Robert Siscoe Part I
http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/03/the-hammer-destroys-heretics-fr-kramers.html (http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/03/the-hammer-destroys-heretics-fr-kramers.html)
http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/03/apostolica-sedes-nemine-iudicatur.html (http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/03/apostolica-sedes-nemine-iudicatur.html)
http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/03/from-clear-as-summer-sun-file-fr-kramer.html (http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/03/from-clear-as-summer-sun-file-fr-kramer.html)
Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline cannot be harmful or corrupt.Explain how V2 is part of the Universal Discipline if it cannot be traced back to Apostolic times and disagrees with Tradition? Explain how V2 and the new mass can corrupt the magisterium when they aren’t morally binding, nor taught with certainty of Faith?
Explain how V2 is part of the Universal Discipline if it cannot be traced back to Apostolic times and disagrees with Tradition? Explain how V2 and the new mass can corrupt the magisterium when they aren’t morally binding, nor taught with certainty of Faith?Because the celebration of TLM was extremely limited for many years and Catholics were ordered under pain of sin to attend Novus Ordo masses.
Since you can’t answer the above (you’ve been given ample opportunities) then your assertions are incorrect and not based on facts.
Catholics were ordered under pain of sin to attend Novus Ordo masses.The order never came from the papacy or Rome, but from diocesan bishops. BIG difference.
You are correct Cantarella.Of course, at this point, you could not foresee Pax Vobis swooping in to put you in check...
About a year ago I seem to recall that on another forum, SuscipeDomine, either Salza or Siscoe was posting there. He posted the incorrect order and this error was brought to his attention. He was never able to refute it. In fact, he disappeared from the forum completely.
Cantarella,...and there is the left hook...
The entire point of this thread is to point out that one must read + Bellarmine's opinion IN PARALLEL with Cajetan's position, who is he arguing with. If you strictly read +Bellarmine and ignore the context of Cajetan's argument, you are reading +Bellarmine out of context as well.
But you skip over the first question, namely WHO DECIDES IF THE POPE IS MANIFEST? This decision MUST come from the CHURCH after a PROCESS whereby the pope is PUBLICLY CORRECTED for his public heresy....and the knockout punch!
The determination by the CHURCH of the pope's manifest heresy hasn't been decided yet (in the case of +Francis, he's been corrected once already). Ergo, we cannot precede to the question of deposition, or auto-loss of the office yet.
You sedes are jumping ahead, falsely assuming his manifest heresy is obvious. Such determination is ONLY from the Church. +Bellarmine argues that if a pope is determined to be a manifest heretic, then he loses his office. Ok, fine. But we're not there yet.
4) Finally Ladislaus...poor man...he still gives no indication a day later of having read Siscoe/Salza's article; certainly he makes no attempt to refute Pax Vobis' summation of Bellarmine's true position (because he can't).
:jester: ... ah, so the baboon returns to playfully throw fecal matter around at people.
I have read it, but care nothing about it, since I have said several times now that I do not hold the straight Bellarminist position on this matter.
Pax, for his part, has shown himself to be a complete idiot who, like you, simply makes things up to suit his agenda ... like your earlier false allegation about Archbishop Lefebvre that was refuted with one post ... after which you completely turned tail and ran away from that thread.
:laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1:
...and the knockout punch!
:jester: :facepalm: :jester: :facepalm:Is the knockout why you are holding your face in your hands?
Far, far from a refutation.
I will throw you a bone:
Acceptinng your total annihilation in this thread, could you please reproduce the "false allegation I made about Archbishop Lefebvre" (seeing as you have nothing to say on the current subject)?
So now you're going to make me say it again, right? I've never attepted a refutation because I don't care about it. Cantarella et al. have refuted it quite nicely however.
All I care about is your heresy that the Church's Universal Magisterium and Discipline can become corrupt ... to the point of endangering souls.
So now you're going to make me say it again, right? I've never attempted a refutation because I don't care about it. I don't follow the Bellarmine position on this. You base your "refutation" of sedevacantism on the assumption that it's all based on Bellarmine ... or (an alleged) misreading thereof. Cantarella et al. have refuted it quite nicely however.
All I care about is your heresy that the Church's Universal Magisterium and Discipline can become corrupt ... to the point of endangering souls.
I don't follow the Bellarmine position on this....I have read it, but care nothing about itFor someone who "doesn't care" about this topic, you're posting an awful lot on this thread...
Cantarella,
The entire point of this thread is to point out that one must read + Bellarmine's opinion IN PARALLEL with Cajetan's position, who is he arguing with. If you strictly read +Bellarmine and ignore the context of Cajetan's argument, you are reading +Bellarmine out of context as well.
“The fifth opinion is thus the true one: a manifestly heretical pope ceases by that very fact to be pope and head, even as he ceases by this reason to be a Christian and a member of the Body of the Church; and this is why he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the position of all the ancient fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction”
This why Bellarmine and Suarez consider that the pope, by the very fact that he is a manifest heretic and is declared to be incorrigible [by the Church], is immediately deposed by Our Lord Jesus Christ, and not by means of some authority in the Church.
With this power which we recognize in him, it is clear that the Church has absolutely no power over the Pope, and even in the situation where he is a heretic, it does not, properly speaking, have power over the Pope, but on the conjunction of the Papacy with Peter which it dissolves. And thus it clearly appears that the power of the Church is on the conjunction of the papacy and Peter, both in his becoming such and in the destruction of such, the subject being disposed to the accession as such by means of the faith and the will, and the destruction of such by heresy or the will; and as this power is inferior to that of the papacy, it cannot in any way limit the power of the papacy. And so one sees that the Pope has no power above him, even in the case where he is a heretic/
This why Bellarmine and Suarez consider that the pope, by the very fact that he is a manifest heretic and is declared to be incorrigible [by the Church], is immediately deposed by Our Lord Jesus Christ, and not by means of some authority in the Church.The fact of his manifest heresy has not been established yet, by the Church. So, he has not yet been immediately deposed by Christ.
If you notice, the above explanation of Bellarmine is very similar to what Suarez said above, namely, just as God does not make a man Pope without the judgment of men (who elect him), neither will Christ depose a Pope “unless it is through men” (who judge him), which is obviously referring to the proper authorities, just as Christ does not make a man Pope unless he is elected by the proper authorities.
And also notice that in such a case it is inferiors judging a superior, which shows that the Pope did not already lose his office (which is how the Sedes “interpret” Bellarmine's teaching).
The fact of his manifest heresy has not been established yet, by the Church. So, he has not yet been immediately deposed by Christ.
I say thirdly: if the Pope is a heretic and incorrigibly such, because of the declarative sentence of his crime, through the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church, he ceases to be Pope. This is the common opinion of the Doctors of the Church” “This [judgement] is itself that of all the Bishops of the Church, and thus of a General Council”
I say thirdly: if the Pope is a heretic and incorrigibly such, because of the declarative sentence of his crime, through the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church, he ceases to be Pope.For the 3rd time, you are missing the point. "If the pope is a heretic and incorrigibly such..." WHO DECIDES IF HE IS A HERETIC AND INCORRIGIBLE?
For the 3rd time, you are missing the point. "If the pope is a heretic and incorrigibly such..." WHO DECIDES IF HE IS A HERETIC AND INCORRIGIBLE?The Church has declared infallibly what the Faith is and consequential anathemas. It is legalistic and redundant to expect the Church to repeat itself in saying, for example, "If any one saith, that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives at the same time, and that this is not prohibited by any divine law; let him be anathema."
Answer: THE CHURCH!
This decision on his heresy has to happen BEFORE Christ deposes him, or the Church deposes him.
The Church has declared infallibly what the Faith is and consequential anathemas. It is legalistic and redundant to expect the Church to repeat itself in saying, for example, "If any one saith, that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives at the same time, and that this is not prohibited by any divine law; let him be anathema."QFT.
Clear and defined Dogma being denied separates one from the Church. It is not Christ that is subject to the Church but the Church that is subject to Christ. Much less would Christ be subject to a bunch of impostor modernists in Rome in order to depose of a heretic.
Formal heresy is formal heresy and does not require the judgement of a bunch of heretics or liberals to declare it as such.
Clear and defined Dogma being denied separates one from the Church.Who decides it has been denied? You apparently. "Heretic!" so saith Centroamerica. I'm glad i'm not part of your "free for all" and process-less, dictatorship church.
Who decides it has been denied? You apparently. "Heretic!" so saith Centroamerica. I'm glad i'm not part of your "free for all" and process-less, dictatorship church.I don't say that Bergoglio isn't the pope, just that I don't see how he could be.
The pope is only a manifest heretic, AFTER a 1st and 2nd admonition. Then the Church declares him a heretic. Then he either 1) immediately loses his office (per +Bellarmine) OR 2) the
Church must depose him.
He adds in the same work that no spiritual power remains in them (heretics), who have departed from the Church, over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano teaches the same thing, when he says that heretics are not part of the Church, nor members, and he adds in the last Chapter, 12th argument, that someone cannot even be informed in thought, that he should be head and Pope, who is not a member nor a part, and he teaches the same thing in eloquent words, that secret heretics are still in the Church and are parts and members, and that a secretly heretical Pope is still Pope.
Others teach the same, whom we cite in Book 1 of de Ecclesia. The foundation of this opinion is that a manifest heretic, is in no way a member of the Church; that is, neither in spirit nor in body, or by internal union nor external. For even wicked Catholics are united and are members, in spirit through faith and in body through the confession of faith, and the participation of the visible Sacraments. Secret heretics are united and are members, but only by an external union: just as on the other hand, good Catechumens are in the Church only by an internal union but not an external one. Manifest heretics by no union, as has been proved.
No post-conciliar pope has been declared a manifest heretic (even though such admonitions should've taken place, this is up to God), so you can't skip this part and go directly to him losing his office. Manifest heresy can only be proven/decided by the Church.
Who decides it has been denied? You apparently. "Heretic!" so saith Centroamerica. I'm glad i'm not part of your "free for all" and process-less, dictatorship church.The Church doesn not make someone a heretic in its judgement of them. It recognises that the person IS ALREADY a formal heretic and has been since they adopted their views. Catholics do not need the Church to delcare it to see a man with 3 wives is a heretic, and to treat him as such.
I don't say that Bergoglio isn't the pope, just that I don't see how he could be.
Just think for a minute how events would have played out had there been a heretic Pope in the past ages of the Church when the majority of the hierarchy were clearly still Catholic.
1 ) Pope says something heretical.
2 ) Somebody close to him reprimands him.
3 ) Pope doubles down. [If he retracted at this point, it's a non-issue. So the heresy must in fact be pertinacious.]
4 ) More people reprimand and correct him.
5 ) Pope pertinaciously holds his opinion.
6 ) Growing doubt among more and more Catholics about his orthodoxy.
7 ) Universal Consensus that he's a heretic.
8 ) Church declares in Imperfect General Council that he's not the pope.
With Bergoglio we're on step 6. At what point does the Papa Dubius situation kick in? Somewhere between 3 and 6. If during this time he were to define a dogma, what would the status of that dogma be? Because of the serious positive doubt in play, it would not be possible to accept it with the absolute certainty of faith required of dogmas. Thus the famous theological maxim: Papa dubius papa nullus.: a doubtful pope is no pope. Meaning that, for all intents and purposes, due to the grave substantial positive doubt about his orthodoxy, he does not exercise teaching authority with the requisite certainty regarding its authenticity. At that point he goes into the "quarantine" state described by Father Chazal.
Now, in the steps above, at what time does he cease to be Pope? Well, I submit ... along with Father Chazal ... that he would formally cease to have authority somewhere between 3 and 6.
Now, when would Bellarmine say he was deposed? Somewhere between 6 and 7 I imagine. Many of the more dogmatic Bellarminist sedevacantists say 3. But I find that problematic. How about Cajetan? Only at step 8, in his view, would the Pope cease to be pope.
Even then, what would be the status of any dogmas he tried to declare during steps 3-6? That's in serious doubt. This is why Bishop Guerard des Lauriers, in his thinking, significantly improved upon the state of this question. If this Pope tried to define a dogma in the 3-6 stages, there would be positive doubt about its authority. Consequently, for all intents and purposes, this Pope lacks all authority. Again, Papa Dubius Papa Nullus.
So this is an incredibly complex topic. And people are obviously entitled to have different opinions about it.
All I know, however, is that Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass could NOT have come from the legitimate authority of the Church.
Now, again, referring to the above steps, most R&R would follow the Cajetan opinion that he only ceases to be Pope at Step 8. On its own a position that's defensible as Catholic. That's why I have said that I have no issue PER SE with anyone who holds that opinion. And I reject the calumny spread about me by Pax and Meg that I have declared heretical anyone who believes that the V2 Popes are legitimate. I most certainly do not. I reject only the proposition that an Ecuмenical Council and the Church's Universal Discipline (Rite of Mass and Canon Law) can become so corrupt as to endanger souls. That I do consider to be heretical. But if you wanted to say that Bergoglio is Pope based on following the Cajetan position and because Step 8 hasn't happened yet, that's your right to hold that. But do NOT tell me that an Ecuмenical Council has taught heresy to the Church, or I will punch your lights out (virtually speaking, verbally, and by way of argument). That's as if you would insult my mother calling her a whore. Do not call my mother, Holy Mother Church, a whore ... I will NOT tolerate this. That's why I will tear you to shreds for promoting that filth. NOT because you happen to think that Bergoglio remains pope until deposed by the Church.
But the progression above shows why the Cajetan position is LOGICALLY untenable, and Bishop Guerard got it right. Once there's positive doubt about a V2 Pope's orthodoxy, he cannot exercise authority with the REQUIRED certainty. Everything he teaches and does and imposes becomes DOUBTFUL. And, as such, there's no obligation to follow it. Sededoubtism. That's why Canon Lawyers have taught that someone is not schismatic if he refuses submission to a Pope based on grave positive doubts regarding his person or the legitimacy of his election. I have BOTH.
And, finally, as I have said, very few R&R are actually TRUE sedeplenists. To be a sedeplenist, you MUST accept the legitimacy of Bergoglio with the CERTAINTY OF FAITH. You can no more speculative even hypothetically about the possibility that he MIGHT NOT be than you can speculate that there may not be Three Divine Persons in One God. And every SSPX bishop has in fact thus speculated. Once you speculated, this means GRAVE POSITIVE DOUBT regarding the Bergoglio (or his predecessors), and this means ZERO AUTHORITY, as Father Chazal has articulated. I would guess that only 5% of all R&R are actually REAL SEDEPLENISTS. Most of them just pay lip service to Bergoglio because he remains in material possession of the See and has not reached Step #8. So much of the fighting on this matter is fake, and Sedeplenists are NOT IN FACT Sedeplenists but more Sedeprivationists (without admitting it). Father Chazal has taken the step of properly articulating the reality of this position.
Manifest heresy can be at least recognized by any Roman Catholic well grounded upon the Faith.Cantarella believes that any 'joe plumber' catholic can make a determination on what is or isn't heresy, and also judge stubbornness too, of the Pope of all people, and do so 3,000 miles away from the comfort of their lazy-boy chair. Talk about chaos! Talk about "armchair" theologians! This is insanity.
Cantarella believes that any 'joe plumber' catholic can make a determination on what is or isn't heresy, and also judge stubbornness too, of the Pope of all people, and do so 3,000 miles away from the comfort of their lazy-boy chair. Talk about chaos! Talk about "armchair" theologians! This is insanity.
This idea that you must not call heresy heresy unless a bunch of heretics in Rome tell you you can is just ridiculous.The laity have a duty to know their Faith well enough to recognize blatant heresy, of which many of the post-conciliar popes have flirted with (and/or crossed the line). The point of the laity recognizing heresy is to avoid it and safeguard their faith, not to correct Rome. We laity have no authority to correct a pope in an official manner, nor to make a determination on the perniciousness of a pope, with whom we have no day-to-day contact, nor working relationship. Only Church officials in rome can make this determination in an OFFICIAL manner, and that is their job, not ours. The Church is not a democracy, it is has a hierarchy for a reason; to make difficult decisions.
Cantarella believes that any 'joe plumber' catholic can make a determination on what is or isn't heresy, and also judge stubbornness too, of the Pope of all people, and do so 3,000 miles away from the comfort of their lazy-boy chair. Talk about chaos! Talk about "armchair" theologians! This is insanity.
Yet, you have no problem with the same "joe plumber" recognizing heresy in nothing less that an Ecunemical Council and rejecting as sacrilegious a Rite of Mass promulgated and celebrated by the Sovereign Pontiff.
Yet, you have no problem with the same "joe plumber" recognizing heresy in nothing less that an Ecunemical Council and rejecting as sacrilegious a Rite of Mass promulgated and celebrated by the Sovereign Pontiff.The difference is quite simple but it hurts your agenda so you have to resort to exaggerations to make the distinction seem crazy.
The difference is quite simple but it hurts your agenda so you have to resort to exaggerations to make the distinction seem crazy.
1. The difference is that recognizing the pope as pope is REQUIRED to be catholic.
Ah, I see, so when a Pope dies and before a new one is elected, there are no Catholics left in the world ... since there's no Pope to be recognized. And if I die during such an interregnum I would be lost, since I am not Catholic anymore.
The difference is quite simple but it hurts your agenda so you have to resort to exaggerations to make the distinction seem crazy.I agree with you that the laity have no say, it is the clergy who are divided on this issue. We as laymen are only defending the position of certain clergy who hold that position. There might be some laymen who are off on their own but that is irrelevant to the debate between the R&R and SV positions. There are significant numbers of clergy on both sides of the debate. As to your point #1, you are begging the question. You can't prove a man is pope by starting with the assertion that he is pope. You also can't prove that the Conciliar church hierarchy is the hierarchy of the Catholic Church by the assertion that it is the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. When there is a man who clearly holds the Catholic faith and is recognized by a large percentage of Catholic clergy (who likewise clearly hold the Catholic faith) as the pope then we can be sure he is the pope. Otherwise, there is doubt. Also, there is no requirement to be correct about your decision as to whether or not to recognize a certain clergyman as the pope as long as it was made in good faith. St. Vincent Ferrer was incorrect about who was the pope. What you ought not to do is trash the Church's traditional ecclesiology in order to justify your position. One of the strengths of the straight SV position (as opposed to the sedeprivation position) is that is based purely on traditional ecclesiology. There is nothing new that needs to be added on. You can't say that about the R&R position which introduces the novelty that a pope can be systematically resisted on matters of faith and morals and that the Church's magisterium can lead Catholics astray. Likewise, the sedeprivation position introduces the novelty that an ecclesiastical office (jurisdiction) can be separated into matter and form and that a clergyman can possess the matter without also possessing the form. It might work but it is a novelty. No theologian prior to the crisis ever proposed such a thing. But there have been 260 sede vacante periods in the history of the Church. Nothing novel there.
1. The difference is that recognizing the pope as pope is REQUIRED to be catholic. It is the DEFAULT catholic position. If there arise an extreme situation in the papacy, then ONLY THE CHURCH can deal with this situation. The laity have absolutely no say in any of this. They didn’t elect the pope and they can’t accuse him of heresy. To say otherwise is the most ridiculously anti-catholic assertion there is. Our Church is founded on a hierarchy. The laity are at the bottom of the totem-pole. You don’t have a vote, you’ll never get one and if you think you should have one, you should join another religion.
2. V2 and the new mass are not required for salvation. You can wine and moan all you want, but you cannot escape this fact. Because they are not required to be believed, it’s not wrong to question them on aspects where they disagree with Tradition.
The difference is that recognizing the pope as pope is REQUIRED to be catholic.I'll repeat this, since you continue to exaggerate my claims and distort what the above sentence means. Obviously, if a pope dies, there is no one to recognize, so your example is silly.
(but not to remain in Canonical submission to him nor to heed his Magisterium nor to worship God with the same Rite of Mass that he uses.I'll repeat, the post-conciliar popes do not require V2 or the new mass to be accepted for salvation. Submission only applies to requirements.
I'll repeat this, since you continue to exaggerate my claims and distort what the above sentence means. Obviously, if a pope dies, there is no one to recognize, so your example is silly.And sedevacantists believe there is no Pope to recognise right now.
There are significant numbers of clergy on both sides of the debateI'm sorry but no traditional clergy have jurisdiction so they are not part of the hierarchy. When I say 'hierarchy' i'm talking about Cardinals and officals of Rome, who have as their job the govermental aspects of the entire church. No trad cleric has any say in the matter of the pope, because they don't have the power or vocation to 1) elect him or 2) study the theological questions surrounding his heretical actions.
You can't prove a man is pope by starting with the assertion that he is pope. You also can't prove that the Conciliar church hierarchy is the hierarchy of the Catholic Church by the assertion that it is the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.The Church has been headquarted in Rome since before you were born. Those who reside in Rome as the pope and Cardinals are such, whether you want to accept reality or not.
I'm sorry but no traditional clergy have jurisdiction so they are not part of the hierarchy. When I say 'hierarchy' i'm talking about Cardinals and officals of Rome, who have as their job the govermental aspects of the entire church. No trad cleric has any say in the matter of the pope, because they don't have the power or vocation to 1) elect him or 2) study the theological questions surrounding his heretical actions.According to Wilhelm and Scannell and other approved theological manuals, the hierarchy consists of all clergy (those who have received first tonsure). Aside from the pope, no one has jurisdiction over the Roman See. And according to canon law, only the College of Cardinals can elect a pope during a sede vacante. Obviously they would have to agree that there is a sede vacante. But several pre-Vatican 2 theologians speculated about what would happen in the event that the College of Cardinals is wiped out or incapacitated. They all agree that the authority to elect a pope (and obviously to determine whether or not there is a sede vacante) would devolve to other members of the hierarchy. Some said it would be the Roman clergy (note they don't have ordinary jurisdiction over anything). Some said to an imperfect general council. There is no canon law or general agreement about how this situation would be handled. The only agreement is that it can be handled. And it doesn't require jurisdiction to accomplish it. Obviously, the participation of the highest possible authorities gives legitimacy to the final outcome. So in fact, trad clerics could have a say in the matter. Your mistake is in assuming that Conciliar clerics are actually Catholic and that they possess jurisdiction. If you throw that idea away then, yes, traditional Catholic clerics would be part of the process.
The Church has been headquarted in Rome since before you were born. Those who reside in Rome as the pope and Cardinals are such, whether you want to accept reality or not.I take that to mean you don't understand logic.
The Church has been headquarted in Rome since before you were born. Those who reside in Rome as the pope and Cardinals are such, whether you want to accept reality or not.Right. So anyone who dresses like a Pope and lives in the Vatican is Pope by those simple facts. Gotcha.
Your mistake is in assuming that Conciliar clerics are actually Catholic and that they possess jurisdiction.Since they occupy the dioceses, we must assume they do, until is proven otherwise.
Right. So anyone who dresses like a Pope and lives in the Vatican is Pope by those simple facts. Gotcha.He was also elected, don't forget. Does that not matter? If it doesn't, you must prove why.
He was also elected, don't forget. Does that not matter? If it doesn't, you must prove why.Because he was a heretic before being elected.
Because he was a heretic before being elected.Ok, then get off and quit confusing this thread! The topic is what to do with a pope AFTER his election, when he becomes a heretic. Your view is completely different. You can't "mix and match" papal problems with +Bellarmine's papal solutions.
Ok, then get off and quit confusing this thread! The topic is what to do with a pope AFTER his election, when he becomes a heretic. Your view is completely different. You can't "mix and match" papal problems with +Bellarmine's papal solutions.You said that the Pope and his Cardinals are valid simply because they claim to be and live in Rome. That's nonsense logic and is what I was disputing. You also said that if there is a Pope, we must follow him, but that ignores the fact that there can and always have been false claimants to the Papacy. Location doesn't affect the validity of their claim, as much as you assert the contrary.
Good quotes to reflect upon today. How is your inner disposition towards the Pope you recognize and the Holy See?
Pope Pius X is saying here that "there can be no holiness when there is disagreement with the Pope".
You said that the Pope and his Cardinals are valid simply because they claim to be and live in Rome. That's nonsense logic and is what I was disputing.You are disputing the continous succession of Cardinals/Popes for over 2,000 years and assuming they must be "re-certified" to your own, personal satisfaction. You are accusing the clergy of a crime, you must show the evidence (actually, you have no ability to accuse the clergy of a crime, but let's just pretend you did). A prosecutor has to prove his case, not the other way around.
You are disputing the continous succession of Cardinals/Popes for over 2,000 years and assuming they must be "re-certified" to your own, personal satisfaction. You are accusing the clergy of a crime, you must show the evidence (actually, you have no ability to accuse the clergy of a crime, but let's just pretend you did). A prosecutor has to prove his case, not the other way around.Antipopes have reigned from Rome before. To say that we must believe someone just because they say they're Pope is nonsense. Catholics must use discernment, for at every point in history there have been multiple claimants to the Papacy. To believe that someone who prays a false Mass and leads his Church into heresy, as you say he does, is a valid Pope just because he says so is asinine.
Only God knows whether or not Francis is an Antipope.Bishop Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi and his blog . https://abyssum.org/about/
There is no doubt that he was elected a pope, but is he a pope or is he an antipope?
There is doubt that his election was both valid and licit, there is good reason to believe that it was either illicit but valid or licit and invalid.
I see that no one has been able to refute Catarella's and my own debunking of S&S. They have since turned tail and run away from this thread.
It's not possible for inferiors to judge their superiors guilty of ANYTHING ... not in any juridical or canonical manner. Consequently, the Pope would have to have ceased being the Pope prior to this judgment, so the he would be judged as a mere man and not as Pope.
St. Bellarmine clearly says the Council should only be gathered if he's found to be a heretic. He is found to be a heretic first, THEN the Council is called and makes its judgement. Which is the only way it can happen because it is illegal and against the Faith to put a valid Pope on trial. Only when he is known to be a heretic can he be put on trial, because at that point he's not longer the Pope.“The fourth reason is suspicion of heresy in the Roman Pontiff, if perhaps it might happen, or if he were an incorrigible tyrant; for then a general Council ought to be gathered either to depose the Pope if he should be found to be a heretic; or certainly to admonish him if he seemed to be incorrigible in morals. As it is related in the 8th Council, act. ult. canon 21, general Councils ought to impose judgment on controversies arising in regard to the Roman Pontiff—albeit not rashly.”This quotation is significant for a number of reasons. To begin with, Bellarmine says if a pope is suspected of heresy a council can licitly be gathered to render a judgment, and only if the bishops determine that he is guilty of heresy, can they depose him. The reason this is significant is because Bellarmine’s well-known position is that a “manifest heretic” ceases to be pope, yet here he says a Pope who is only suspected of heresy (not a manifest heretic) can be judged by the bishops at a council. What this proves is that, according to Bellarmine himself, a council is not gathered to simply to declare that a pope who is already deemed to be a manifest heretical has lost his office. It is gathered to render a judgment about a pope who is suspected of heresy. He does not become a "manifest heretic" until his heresy is sufficiently proven to the bishops at the council.
I see that no one has been able to refute Catarella's and my own debunking of S&S. They have since turned tail and run away from this thread.Which is exactly what Siscoe and Salza did when their error was shown to them in that SuscipeDomine thread I mentioned earlier in this thread.
It's not possible for inferiors to judge their superiors guilty of ANYTHING ... not in any juridical or canonical manner. Consequently, the Pope would have to have ceased being the Pope prior to this judgment, so the he would be judged as a mere man and not as Pope.
To begin with, Bellarmine says if a pope is suspected of heresy a council can licitly be gathered to render a judgment, and only if the bishops determine that he is guilty of heresy, can they depose him.
But on the contrary, since in the first place, were a heretic to remain joined with the Church in act by reason of the character, he could never be cut off and separated from her, because the character is indelible, yet everyone affirms that some can be cut off from the Church de facto: therefore, the character does not make a heretical man exist in the Church in act; rather, it is only a sign that he was in the Church, and that he ought to be in the Church. Just as the character impressed upon a sheep, when it was in the mountains, does not make it to be in the sheepfold, rather indicates from which fold it fled, and to where it can be driven back again. This is also confirmed by St. Thomas, who says that those who do not have faith are not united to Christ in act, but only in potency, and there he speaks on internal union, not external, which is made through the confession of faith, and the visible Sacraments. Therefore, since the character pertains to what is internal and not external, according to St. Thomas, the character alone does not unite a man with Christ in act.
On May 31, 2018, an Imperfect Council convenes and makes a declaration: "On May 1, 2018, Jorge Bergoglio ceased to be a member of the Catholic Church and therefore to be Pope."
...it was on May 1 that it [the Pope's heresy] became officially "manifest".
St. Bellarmine clearly says the Council should only be gathered if he's found to be a heretic. He is found to be a heretic first, THEN the Council is called and makes its judgement. Which is the only way it can happen because it is illegal and against the Faith to put a valid Pope on trial. Only when he is known to be a heretic can he be put on trial, because at that point he's not longer the Pope.
I find this part about albert pighius interesting(quoted in bold at the bottom). It is an opinion that may be very close to my opinion. My opinion is that a pope can never become/be judged a formal heretic(even after reading that very enjoyable and enlightening article by salza/siscoe). Whether pighius is referring to formal heresy, and not material heresy, is unsure. But, because bellarmine says it is defend-able, that leads me to believe pighius is referring only to formal heresy. Because, I think bellarmine says past popes have been material heretics, and would not defend an opinion that a pope can never become a material heretic, when history says the contrary. That a pope can never be a material heretic is a sedevacantist sentiment(ipso facto fall from if so nonsense). And, they are just wrong wrong wrong.How on earth would it be pious to believe that a Pope could preach heresy and never be stopped? Pighius' belief was the Pope could never hold heretical views. That it was one of the graces of the office that the Pope could never fall into the error of teaching contrary to Church dogma.
It is a good thing Bellarmine considers pighius pious and one he could easily defend; but I think it is better that bellarmine's only objection to the theory(according to the article) is that the "contrary opinion is more common". Being that common opinion has been weaponized in the years leading up to the council(hundreds of years), and is the foundation of collegiality IMO, I am not afraid to shy from common opinion. A pope can be a material heretic, and many have in my opinion been/are. I am not going to tell you exactly why I believe what I believe. But, I do not believe that the college of cardinals will ever pull off such a stunt. And, if they do, I believe it would only be for nefarious ends. Because, the college is an invention. The true instrument whose responsibility the orthodoxy of the pope falls on doesn't attempt it, for the love of Christ. Popes can never be judged formal heretics.
If anyone can post more specifics about this first opinion, I would appreciate it.
The first opinion Bellarmine discusses is that of Albert Pighius who taught that a Pope could not become a heretic. Bellarmine refers to this as a “pious opinion,” and said he could easily defend it, yet he also conceded that “the common opinion is the contrary” (which means the common opinion is that a Pope can become a heretic). Bellarmine then proceeded to discuss four additional opinions concerning how (or if) a heretical Pope could lose his office.
I agree, An Even Seven. So how is it that so many sedes think they can "personally" judge the pope to have lost his office when the Church has not yet decided? If this is what +Bellarmine says, and they big fans of +Bellarmine, why the contradiction? Why the misinterpreting of +Bellarmine's views?Once again we see that the judgment that the pope is a heretic takes place during the council. The bishops must “clearly prove” that he is a heretic, before they can legitimately declare him deposed.
And as he's Pope, there's no way in hell he's unaware of the basic dogmas he denies. Regardless, concerned clergymen have informed him of his errors many times and he's ignored them. Therefore he's a formal heretic.Forlorn's comment proves my point exactly. Private judgment of the pope's heresy is promoted in direct contradiction to +Bellarmine's conclusions. OUTRAGEOUS!
If anyone can post more specifics about this first opinion, I would appreciate it.
The first opinion Bellarmine discusses is that of Albert Pighius who taught that a Pope could not become a heretic. Bellarmine refers to this as a “pious opinion,” and said he could easily defend it, yet he also conceded that “the common opinion is the contrary” (which means the common opinion is that a Pope can become a heretic). Bellarmine then proceeded to discuss four additional opinions concerning how (or if) a heretical Pope could lose his office.
This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.
Forlorn's comment proves my point exactly. Private judgment of the pope's heresy is promoted in direct contradiction to +Bellarmine's conclusions. OUTRAGEOUS!Why don't you try reading what St. Bellarmine said. He said the Pope must first be determined to be a manifest heretic, and THEN a general council must be called to depose him. A council CANNOT put a Pope on trial, let alone depose him. The general council is called AFTER heresy is determined, because when a Pope becomes a heretic he is no longer a Pope.
This opinion has its foundation in Jesus Christ's prayer that Peter's Faith never fails, found in Luke 22:32.
The Vatican I Council having such specific verse as source, declares:
Canterella. Christ's promise of unfailing faith in Peter does not refer to the personal faith of Peter's successors. This point was directly addressed during Vatican I. The unfailing faith of Peter pertains to the papal office, and prevents a pope from erring when he defines a doctrine.
The general council is called AFTER heresy is determined,Yes, forlorn, I agree. However you are claiming that YOU can determine whether the pope is heretical. +Bellarmine says otherwise and your view is not supported at all.
Yes, forlorn, I agree. However you are claiming that YOU can determine whether the pope is heretical. +Bellarmine says otherwise and your view is not supported at all.My opinion that Francis is a heretic is not why I don't accept him as Pope. No, I agree, I have no authority to declare Francis is a heretic. But just out of interest, what do you imagine would be the proper procedure to determine a Pope is a heretic? It must, according to both our interpretations of St. Bellarmine's writing, take place before the General Council. So how is it determined?
This is how I view it as well. Until the Church declares the pope a manifest heretic, we cannot say he's not the pope.
Just as during an election when the Church provides the matter and then God grants the form, when a Pope becomes a heretic God revokes the form and THEN and only then can the Church depose the matter.
“For Jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious; because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, therefore, he is not removed by God unless it is through men. But a secret heretic cannot be judged by men…”Papal jurisdiction (the form) is taken from the pope by God, but not without the judgment of men.
St. Alphonsus says a pope must persist in notorious heresy to lose his office. One formally heretical statement does not qualify as persistent notorious heresy.
My opinion that Francis is a heretic is not why I don't accept him as Pope. No, I agree, I have no authority to declare Francis is a heretic.
But just out of interest, what do you imagine would be the proper procedure to determine a Pope is a heretic? It must, according to both our interpretations of St. Bellarmine's writing, take place before the General Council. So how is it determined?I don't know, but I would guess to say that some sort of council, synod, etc would take place and they would declare him a heretic/deposed all at once. I don't see the need to separate the two acts, but they could be.
I am myself unsure of exactly how I'd answer that question, but I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on it.
Right, we cannot definitely say he's deposed until the Church recognizes it to be the case (typically through a declaration). That's why I am what I have called a "sede-doubtist".Well, logically and based on objective reality, since the Church hasn't declared him a heretic, nor deposed him, what is there to doubt? He's still pope. End of story.
because people refuse to accept the reality that until the Church determines that the pope is a heretic, then his status remains as pope.
Well, logically and based on objective reality, since the Church hasn't declared him a heretic, nor deposed him, what is there to doubt? He's still pope. End of story.
This is not by means the "reality". If it were "reality", then you are in schism and outside the Church. Your are bound to accept the teaching of Vatican II as substantially Catholic and the Novus Ordo Mass as substantially Catholic and not a danger to faith (when properly said).Completely and utterly irrelevant. My status as a schismatic is irrelevant to who is or isn't pope.
Bellarmine explains that only a judge, properly so-called, has the power to render a perfect judgment, and says in no case can such a judgment be rendered against a pope. He goes on to say, however, that a discretionary judgment is permitted against a pope, and proves it by citing the historical cases of Popes Sixtus III, Leo III and Leo VI, who, when accused of crimes, desired to have a council of bishops hear their case. It is certain that these popes and the bishops at the council believed a discretionary judgment was permitted against a sitting pope.
If Bergoglio were to wake up tomorrow and say, "I'm becoming a Buddhist.", according to you, this is still not manifest but "secret" and he remains pope until a General Council can convene to render a "discretionary judgment". That's just nonsensical.It's nonsensical to have a PROCESS? It's nonsensical to wait for the CHURCH to decide such a grave matter? Your logic leads to chaos...
The conditions for a teaching of one of Peter's successor to be free from error is what was defined at Vatican I.
Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren
It's nonsensical to have a PROCESS? It's nonsensical to wait for the CHURCH to decide such a grave matter? Your logic leads to chaos...
An authoritative teaching that does not meet the criterion for infallibility (and in which the possibility of error remains), is to be accepted with a lesser level of assent (obsequium religiosum), which permits of exceptions.I agree, RomanTheo, but they’ll respond with the modernist/Fenton argument that even non-infallible teachings are free from “major” errors, because of their false understanding of Indefectibility. They preach a non-infallible infallibility.
End of story, my foot. See the previous post.I will preface this by saying I reject the material pope thesis. That being said, if a pope were to lose the form of the papacy as a habit, yet continued to be recognized as pope by the Church, all his acts of jurisdiction would remain valid due to the titulus coloratus, or color of title, he possesses. It has always been held that the color of title, combined with common error, suffices to render acts of jurisdiction valid for both secular and ecclesiastical authorities by virtue of supplied jurisdiction, which in the case of a pope would come, not from the Church, but from Christ.
He remains materially pope until the Church declares otherwise.
1 How on earth would it be pious to believe that a Pope could preach heresy and never be stopped?1 I never said he couldn't be stopped. I said he cannot be judged a formal heretic as pope. Natural death, resignation(a manifestation of conversion), and conversion are all possibilities and alternatives. The pope could be screaming heresy from the rooftops, and that would still not elevate past the level of material heresy. Formal heresy is heresy that has persisted through a legal trail by an instrument/mechanism of the church with the authority to conduct such trial. And, Christ has not willed such authority. Many argue that the college of cardinals has that authority. But, I differ.
2 Pighius' belief was the Pope could never hold heretical views. That it was one of the graces of the office that the Pope could never fall into the error of teaching contrary to Church dogma.
Sr. Bellarmine called this pious because it puts a lot of faith in the Pope, but nevertheless continues on to describe the possibilities in the situation that Pighius might be wrong and that a Pope does become a heretic.
3 Although that thought exercise is settled these days, as we now have Francis to show us that yes indeed, a Pope can be a heretic.
4 And as he's Pope, there's no way in hell he's unaware of the basic dogmas he denies.
5 Regardless, concerned clergymen have informed him of his errors many times and he's ignored them. Therefore he's a formal heretic. And a formal heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church.
1 I never said he couldn't be stopped. I said he cannot be judged a formal heretic as pope. Natural death, resignation(a manifestation of conversion), and conversion are all possibilities and alternatives. The pope could be screaming heresy from the rooftops, and that would still not elevate past the level of material heresy. Formal heresy is heresy that has persisted through a legal trail by an instrument/mechanism of the church with the authority to conduct such trial. And, Christ has not willed such authority. Many argue that the college of cardinals has that authority. But, I differ.1. And how exactly is it pious to believe that a Pope could openly and knowingly contradict Catholic dogma? No, it is clear that Pighius meant Popes cannot become heretics at all.
2 If that is the case, then that is not pious, and not defensible. I am giving bellarmine the benefit of doubt of not being a modernist who thinks two contradictory things orthodox at the same time. However, from the article, it is not certain that pighius is not referring to formal heresy.
3 Always distinguish between material and formal when discussion heresy. Failing to do so sets you up for for disaster.
4 You cannot judge the internal forum(what is in francis mind).
5 Concerned clergymen do not have legal authority to put on trial and judge the pope guilty of heresy. And, that has not happened.
But Catholics are only required to give the level of assent that corresponds to the degree of certitude of the proposition. An infallible proposition, for example, which is guaranteed to be free from error, requires the unqualified assent of faith. An authoritative teaching that does not meet the criterion for infallibility (and in which the possibility of error remains), is to be accepted with a lesser level of assent (obsequium religiosum), which permits of exceptions.
1. And how exactly is it pious to believe that a Pope could openly and knowingly contradict Catholic dogma? No, it is clear that Pighius meant Popes cannot become heretics at all.1 - "knowingly" - stop judging the internal forum. Modernists minds are messed up. They do not think with the mind of the church. "openly" doesn't elevate the heresy to a formal level. It is pious because it would be impious to think that Christ speaks irrelevantly when he says to peter that satan wishes to sift him like wheat. It is pious because it would be impious to think the pope is impeccable and comparable to Christ. It begs the question as to why we must pray for the pope. The pope needs our prayers because he can fall into material heresy and openly contradict dogma. That is why it is not only pious to pray for the pope, but required that the church pray for the pope, particularly in the most solemn prayer of the church, the canon of the mass. To believe otherwise would be impious. Those who believe that a pope cannot openly contradict dogma, have no need to pray for him, as we can see with the sedevacantists, and that is impious.
2. No, Pighius' view is a very pious trust in the Pope. But at the end of the day it's just a view, and not one that was necessarily true. It was not one that St. Bellarmine held either.
3. Even Francis being a material heretic would disprove Pighius' theory.
4. When Francis tells us what's on his mind then we can.
5. But St. Bellarmine taught that a Pope found to be a heretic would lose his Papacy.
Cite where Bellarmine states that a "discretionary judgment" is essential to rendering the heresy "manifest". You try to cobble together a narrative from this, but in treating the subject of a heretical Pope Bellarmine explicitly states that it's only because he's already lost the pontificate that he can be judged and punished.
If a pope is suspect of heresy, or accused of heresy, what is permitted is that a council gather to investigate and discuss the case. If the bishops find that he is guilty, they can declare him outside the Church and then “judge and punish” him (in a manner proper to a superior).That is Bellarmine’s position..Now, the Church cannot directly strip of pope of his pontificate, but it can do so indirectly by first determining that he is a heretic, and then legitimately declaring him deposed. That's what Bellarmine meant.