Author Topic: Are Sedevacantists Clueless About St. Bellarmine's True Position? (Read 10566 times)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #165 on:** April 27, 2018, 02:58:27 PM »

Some of you keep flip-flopping between arguments and REALLY confusing the whole discussion. Why can't we FOCUS on the question at hand, which is, what happens to a pope if he becomes a heretic?

Cantarella is famous for interjecting arguments which are irrelevant, like "well, the pope's faith can't fail so..." Ok, that's an argument BUT NOT THE CURRENT ARGUMENT. So is it possible for ONE MOMENT that you stop taking a topic off on tangents? Do all of you people have ADD? You post like you do. Gee whiz.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #166 on:** April 27, 2018, 03:22:42 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on April 27, 2018, 02:13:20 PM

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...

Pfffft, and R&R doesn't lead to chaos, where it's OK for Catholics to simply reject an Ecuмenical Council, any non-infallible teaching they personally deem to be wrong, to set up their own chapels, ordain their own bishops and priests, etc. etc. Come on now. THAT is chaos.

I never said that it's nonsensical to have a PROCESS. But such a process has never been declared, taught, or outlined officially by the Church ... and is just a matter of speculation. What I said was nonsensical was to think that the process is REQUIRED even in OBVIOUS cases, such as if Bergoglio publicly apostasized (as per my Buddhist example). THAT is what I said was absurd. Please reread my post.

Bergoglio publicly apostasizes and goes to a Buddhist monastery. 30 days later, a Council is convened to declare him guilty of apostasy? In the meantime, Bergoglio retains jurisdiction and teaching authority in the Church? Pu-lease.

RomanTheo · « **Reply #167 on:** April 27, 2018, 03:33:12 PM »

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

Cantarella: No, what is defined is the conditions for such Papal definitions to be irreformable in themselves and not needing the consent of the Church.”

Roman Theo: It is not either/or. It is both, but in different ways.

That the definitive teachings of a pope are in themselves irreformable is the consequence of the fact that the doctrine itself is infallible. But in order to the fact of doctrinal infallibility to be guaranteed, the conditions must be met.

“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 [i.e., as a consequence], such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

The reason the council specified that “the consent of the Church” is not necessary, is because many theologians in the past believe this extrinsic condition was required.

Cantarella: It does not mean that the rest of the papal teachings contain error.

Roman Theo: Of course it doesn’t mean all other papal teachings contain error. But what it does mean is that the possibility of error exists in “other papal teachings” when the conditions are not met.

Cantarella: It also does not mean that Catholics are bound to obedience to the ex-cathedra definitions, in exclusivity.

Roman Theo: Agreed. 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.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #168 on:** April 27, 2018, 03:38:29 PM »

Ok, so let’s say the process of determining heresy isn’t required. Show me ONE shred of evidence that a layman is allowed to determine the status of formal and certain status of heresy, even for another layman.

If you are criticizing the need for a process, in “obvious” cases, then you are advocating for personal judgment, which has no historical basis. So is the twice formal correction not necessary? You keep downplaying a process but offer no resonable explanation for how it would work in real life and not lead to multiple different views on the pope, as the poll shows clearly.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #169 on:** April 27, 2018, 03:42:37 PM »

Quote

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.

Good luck with trying to understand it.

RomanTheo · « **Reply #170 on:** April 27, 2018, 04:06:12 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 27, 2018, 01:49:01 PM

End of story, my foot. See the previous post.

He remains materially pope until the Church declares otherwise.

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.

So even if it were true that Francis is a "material pope" who lacks the habit of papal jurisdiction, there would be no difference as far as we are concerned. We would be obliged to obey his licit commands no less than we would any other pope. This obligation would remain until the color of title was taken away by a declaration from the Church stating that he is no longer the pope. This brings us back to Bellarmine's teaching that a pope must be obeyed in all licit commands until he is legitimately declared deposed by the Church.

PG · « **Reply #171 on:** April 27, 2018, 04:07:56 PM »

Quote from: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 12:03:57 PM

1 How on earth would it be pious to believe that a Pope could preach heresy and never be stopped?

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.
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.

forlorn · « **Reply #172 on:** April 27, 2018, 04:16:52 PM »

Quote from: PG on April 27, 2018, 04:07:56 PM

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 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.

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. 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.

Cantarella · « **Reply #173 on:** April 27, 2018, 04:33:12 PM »

Quote

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. That is still not a rejection.

R&R is founded upon a rejection of the decrees of Vatican II Council, as well as the Novus Ordo Rite. It is not a case of an acceptance with a "lesser level of assent" to authoritative teachings, but a blunt act of disobedience and resistance.

2. I am very curious to know where these "levels of assent" to ecclesiastical teachings actually originate from. I know Cardinal Ratzinger was one who heavily put forth this novel notion of "levels of magisterial assent".

PG · « **Reply #174 on:** April 27, 2018, 04:56:02 PM »

Quote from: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 04:16:52 PM

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. 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.

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 Lets just leave pighius behind. My only reason for mentioning him is because perhaps he is referring to formal heresy, and not material. And, that conclusion has not been reached by me. So, I have no intention of vouching for and defending him.

RomanTheo · « **Reply #175 on:** April 27, 2018, 10:34:42 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 27, 2018, 01:57:52 PM

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.

He can only be judged and punished, because being “judged and punishment” is a perfect judgment, which is not permitted while he remains pope. 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, and it is confirmed by his treatment of the case of Pope Marcellinus, who was accused of offering incense to the idols, which was considered a public act of apostasy at the time. Read carefully what Bellarmine wrote about this case. It comes immediately after he discusses the difference between a perfect judgment and a discretionary judgment:

“The example of Marcellinus, who in the Council of Sinvessano was condemned by the bishops and deposed. I respond: Marcellinus was accused of an act of infidelity, in which case a Council can discuss the case of the Pope, and if they were to discover that he really was an infidel, the Council can declare him outside the Church and thus condemn him.”

The council is not gathered simply to declare him deposed. It must first investigate and discuss the case, and only if he is found to be guilty (which requires a judgment), does it legitimately declare him to be separated from the Church.

Another teaching of Bellarmine worth considering is found in his treatment of the case of Pope Liberius. Setting aside the fact that Bellarmine was wrong in believing that Liberius lost the pontificate, what he says about the case is of interesting since it helps to show what his true position is.

“Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly be taken from him.”

Because Liberius was considered (which is a judgment) to be a heretic, Bellarmine said "the pontificate could rightly be taken from him" and that the Roman clergy “stripped Liberius of his pontifical dignity.” You cannot take from someone what they no longer possess, nor could the Roman clergy strip Liberius of his pontifical dignity, if he had already lost his pontificate dignity.

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. And if the Church has not taken such actions, the faithful must remain subject to him and obeyed him in all legitimate commands, as Bellarmine teaches.

Cantarella · « **Reply #176 on:** April 27, 2018, 11:29:32 PM »

Quote from: RomanTheo on April 27, 2018, 10:34:42 PM

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.

...And the difference between Bellarmine and Cajetan is therefore what, exactly?

Cantarella · « **Reply #177 on:** April 28, 2018, 12:07:58 AM »

No, Bellarmine's position is that a manifested heretical Pope is deposed before God on account of his heresy before any ecclesiastical declaration. Only then, he can be judged and punished by the Church, not as Pope, but as a mere man. The reasoning is very simple, really. Heretics are outside the Church, "even before excommunication" and deprived of all jurisdiction "for they are condemned by their own judgement, as the Apostle teaches to Titus, they are cut from the Body of the Church without excommunication".

He also says that the Church Fathers teach in unison that not only heretics are outside the Church, but they also lack all jurisdiction and dignity ipso facto.

No Council could ever depose a "Pope" against his will without inverting the proper authority, and against the dogmatic teachings of Unam Sanctam.

Author Topic: Are Sedevacantists Clueless About St. Bellarmine's True Position? (Read 10566 times)

Pax Vobis

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

Ladislaus

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

RomanTheo

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?

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?

Cantarella

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

PG

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?

Cantarella

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