Author Topic: Are Sedevacantists Clueless About St. Bellarmine's True Position? (Read 16872 times)

forlorn · « **Reply #135 on:** April 27, 2018, 05:30:55 AM »

Quote from: RomanTheo on April 27, 2018, 12:34:44 AM

“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.

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.

2Vermont · « **Reply #136 on:** April 27, 2018, 06:14:04 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 26, 2018, 07:59:22 PM

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.

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #137 on:** April 27, 2018, 08:15:56 AM »

Quote from: RomanTheo on April 27, 2018, 12:34:44 AM

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.

No, they cannot depose him. Only God deposes popes. Bellarmine is very clear about that. It's only because the form of the pontificate has already left him that can exercise any authority over the ex-pope.

With regard to this imperfect judgment, the discernment of fact with regard to heresy becoming "manifest", consider it from the perspective of the following scenario:

On May 1, 2018, Bergoglio declares, "I know that the existence of hell is Church dogma, but I simply don't believe it." [not entirely implausible given recent events]

On May 15, 2018, Bergoglio defines a dogma.

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." You know, it would take a while to assemble everyone.

So did Bergoglio lose the office on May 1 or on May 31? May 1 obviously. And the Bergoglian dogma on May 15 is null and void. Also, even though it's obvious that Bergoglio didn't believe in hell long before May 1, it was on May 1 that it became officially "manifest". It did NOT only become "manifest" on May 31.

In other words, the discernment of fact FOLLOWS upon the actual deposition by God and not the other way around.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #138 on:** April 27, 2018, 08:17:45 AM »

Just as a side note, St. Robert Bellarmine also rejects Stubbornism (aka Wathenism) ... the once Catholic always a Catholic by virtue of the Baptismal character position.

Quote

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.

In other words, such as these are material Catholics but not formal Catholics.

Catholicoprivationism.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #139 on:** April 27, 2018, 10:52:35 AM »

Quote

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".

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.

RomanTheo · « **Reply #140 on:** April 27, 2018, 11:42:04 AM »

Quote from: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 05:30:55 AM

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.

You are twisting his words. He says a council can be convened if a pope is suspected of heresy, not if the pope is known to be a manifest heretic. Big difference. If the council finds him to be a heretic it can "depose him", or more precisely, declare him to be deposed, since a council does not possess the authority to truly depose a pope.

Bellarmine teaches the same in response to an objection of the Lutherans, who argued that one of the conditions necessary for a council to be legitimate, is that the pope temporarily absolves the bishops of their oath of fidelity to him, so that they have the freedom to speak without fear of reprisal. Bellarmine responds by saying such a requirement is both unjust and unnecessary. He says it is unnecessary is because,

"the oath does not take away the freedom of the Bishops, which is necessary in Councils, for they swear they will be obedient to the supreme Pontiff, which is understood as long as he is Pope, and provided he commands these things which, according to God and the sacred canons he can command; but they do not swear that they are not going to say what they think in the Council, or that they are not going to depose him if they were to clearly prove that he is a heretic."

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.

But the most important part of Bellarmine’s response to the Lutheran’s is found in the reason he gives for why it is unjust for the bishops to be relieved of their oath of fidelity. He writes:

“The sixth condition is unjust and impertinent. Unjust, because inferiors ought not be free from the obedience to superiors, unless first he were legitimately deposed or declared not to be a superior.”

A pope suspected of heresy must be legitimately declared deposed by the Church before it is permitted to withdraw obedience to him. As long as he legally remains pope, he must be obeyed in all legitimate commands. This is the teaching of Bellarmine.

PG · « **Reply #141 on:** April 27, 2018, 11:54:50 AM »

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.

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.

forlorn · « **Reply #142 on:** April 27, 2018, 12:03:57 PM »

Quote from: PG on April 27, 2018, 11:54:50 AM

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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. And a formal heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #143 on:** April 27, 2018, 12:07:32 PM »

Quote

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.

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?

After all these years of people studying +Bellarmine's clear teachings, it's hard for me to believe this misinterpretation is "an honest mistake". The contradiction/misinterpretation has been pointed out on 3 different threads in the last week and the response has been nill. Quite a validation that many sedes are interpreting +Bellarmine for their own agenda, rather than objectively. Hard to jump on the sede bandwagon when this type of thinking is pervasive.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #144 on:** April 27, 2018, 12:10:11 PM »

Quote

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!

Cantarella · « **Reply #145 on:** April 27, 2018, 12:14:10 PM »

Quote from: PG on April 27, 2018, 11:54:50 AM

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 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:

Quote

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.

This is from the annotations of my XVI century Bible:

forlorn · « **Reply #146 on:** April 27, 2018, 12:14:28 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on April 27, 2018, 12:10:11 PM

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.

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.

RomanTheo · « **Reply #147 on:** April 27, 2018, 12:19:35 PM »

Ladislaus: No, they cannot depose him. Only God deposes popes. Bellarmine is very clear about that. It's only because the form of the pontificate has already left him that can exercise any authority over the ex-pope.

Roman Theo: You are partly correct and partly wrong. It is true that God alone deposes a pope authoritatively. The Church “deposes” him legally by declaring him deposed. Prior to a declaration of the Church, he must be obeyed in all legitimate commands, as Bellarmine teaches in the quotation I cited above.

You are also correct to say the Church cannot exercise any authority over the pope as he retains the form (jurisdiction) of the pontificate, but the form is not removed without human judgment. Bellarmine addresses this point directly:

“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.

Ladislaus: With regard to this imperfect judgment, the discernment of fact with regard to heresy becoming "manifest", consider it from the perspective of the following scenario:

On May 1, 2018, Bergoglio declares, "I know that the existence of hell is Church dogma, but I simply don't believe it." [not entirely implausible given recent events]

On May 15, 2018, Bergoglio defines a dogma.

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." You know, it would take a while to assemble everyone.

So did Bergoglio lose the office on May 1 or on May 31? May 1 obviously.

Roman Theo: No, that is not obvious. 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. In the hypothesis you presented we fall back on the teaching of Bellarmine, that a pope must be obeyed in all legitimate commands until he is legitimately declared to no longer be pope. So, in accord with Bellarmine’s teaching, as far as we are concerned the pope would cease to be pope on May 31st, not May 1^st. And the dogma he defined on May 15^th would be protected by the infallibility of the office he legally holds.

Ladislaus: In other words, the discernment of fact FOLLOWS upon the actual deposition by God and not the other way around.

Roman Theo: But if he had already lost his office, why would the judgment be limited to a discretionary judgment, rather than a perfect judgment?

The discretionary judgment comes first. Once the fact of his heresy has been sufficiently established and he is deemed to have lost his office, then the Church is permitted to judge and punish him, which is proper to a perfect judgment.

RomanTheo · « **Reply #148 on:** April 27, 2018, 12:44:55 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on April 27, 2018, 12:14:10 PM

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.

Bellarmine held the personal opinion that a pope could not lose the faith, but it was not based on Christ's promise to Peter in Luke 22. This can be seen from what Bellarmine wrote in book four of De Romano Pontifice:

"Therefore, the true exposition [of Luke 22] is that the Lord asked for two privileges for Peter. One, that he could not ever lose the true faith insofar as he was tempted by the Devil, and that is something more than the gift of perseverance, for he said to persevere even to the end, which although he fell in the meantime, he still rose again in the end and was discovered faithful, since the Lord prayed for Peter that he could not ever fall because he held fast to the faith. The second privilege is that he, as the Pope, could never teach something against the faith, or that there would never be found one in his See who would teach against the true faith. From these privileges, we see that the first did not remain to his successors, but the second without a doubt did."

The conditions for a teaching of one of Peter's successor to be free from error is what was defined at Vatican I.

Cantarella · « **Reply #149 on:** April 27, 2018, 01:05:08 PM »

Quote from: RomanTheo on April 27, 2018, 12:44:55 PM

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 argument that it does not refer to the "personal" Faith of St. Peter, but the Papal office, is simply that such unfailing Faith was not ONLY a personal gift given to St. Peter the Apostle, alone, but also to all his legitimate successors. That is why the promised unfailing Faith of Peter must be connected to the Papal office, so the legitimate successors also enjoy the privilege throughout time.

Popes may err privately. When they do so, that does not mean that they have lost their Holy Roman Catholic Faith and became heretics. They simply err because they are human.

Popes cannot err doctrinately, however.

Author Topic: Are Sedevacantists Clueless About St. Bellarmine's True Position? (Read 16872 times)

forlorn

Re: Are Sedevacantists Clueless About St. Bellarmine's True Position?

2Vermont

Re: Are Sedevacantists Clueless About St. Bellarmine's True Position?

Ladislaus

Re: Are Sedevacantists Clueless About St. Bellarmine's True Position?

Ladislaus

Re: Are Sedevacantists Clueless About St. Bellarmine's True Position?

Pax Vobis

Re: Are Sedevacantists Clueless About St. Bellarmine's True Position?

RomanTheo

Re: Are Sedevacantists Clueless About St. Bellarmine's True Position?

PG

Re: Are Sedevacantists Clueless About St. Bellarmine's True Position?

forlorn

Re: Are Sedevacantists Clueless About St. Bellarmine's True Position?

Pax Vobis

Re: Are Sedevacantists Clueless About St. Bellarmine's True Position?

Pax Vobis

Re: Are Sedevacantists Clueless About St. Bellarmine's True Position?

Cantarella

Re: Are Sedevacantists Clueless About St. Bellarmine's True Position?

forlorn

Re: Are Sedevacantists Clueless About St. Bellarmine's True Position?

RomanTheo

Re: Are Sedevacantists Clueless About St. Bellarmine's True Position?

RomanTheo

Re: Are Sedevacantists Clueless About St. Bellarmine's True Position?

Cantarella

Re: Are Sedevacantists Clueless About St. Bellarmine's True Position?