Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5

Author Topic: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine  (Read 3021 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15064
  • Reputation: +9980/-3161
  • Gender: Male
Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
« on: October 25, 2019, 01:52:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Note that there is an important (critical) discrepancy between Dr. Lamont’s description of St. Bellarmine’s position regarding the deposition of heretical popes, and Siscoe/Salza’s description of St. Bellarmine’s position on that subject:

    According to Dr. Lamont, St. Bellarmine’s position is, “that a manifestly heretical pope loses the papacy ipso facto, with no need or possibility for an intervention of the Church.”
    (See Dr. Lamont’s “Open Letter” here: https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/'open-letter'-author-criticizes-the-sspx-for-attacking-the-said-letter/msg672833/?topicseen#msg672833)

    This is also the interpretation given to St. Bellarmine by most sedevacantists.

    Siscoe/Salza, however, say nearly the opposite, in arguing that St. Bellarmine and Cajetan/JST were in agreement that the Church had to be involved in the deposition process (with the disagreement between them being merely whether or not the Church had to make a second declaration regarding the fact of the deposition, after tge initial declaration of the pope’s heresy).

    Presuming I have properly understood Dr. Lamont and Siscoe/Salza, the two interpretations of St. Bellarmine on papal deposition are mutually exclusive.

    Someone is not reading St. Bellarmine correctly.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2246
    • Reputation: +1484/-605
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #1 on: October 25, 2019, 02:00:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • I don't think the distinction is all that important.  The important thing to remember is that the pope has deposed himself.  The only question is when was he deposed.  St Robert would say that as soon as his heresy has become manifest.  John of St Thomas would say not until the Church has declared him deposed.  But I doubt John of St Thomas was imagining a scenario where the pope was a public heretic for many years while the Cardinals did nothing.  But if the pope is a manifest heretic and the Cardinals have done nothing for decades, what does that say about the Cardinals?  Pretty obvious isn't it?
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15064
    • Reputation: +9980/-3161
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #2 on: October 25, 2019, 02:06:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Clemens Maria on October 25, 2019, 02:00:51 PM
    I don't think the distinction is all that important.  The important thing to remember is that the pope has deposed himself.  The only question is when was he deposed.  St Robert would say that as soon as his heresy has become manifest.  John of St Thomas would say not until the Church has declared him deposed.  But I doubt John of St Thomas was imagining a scenario where the pope was a public heretic for many years while the Cardinals did nothing.  But if the pope is a manifest heretic and the Cardinals have done nothing for decades, what does that say about the Cardinals?  Pretty obvious isn't it?

    Disagree:

    If the Siscoe/Salza interpretation of Bellarmine is correct, we know Francis has not been deposed with infallible certitude, by the mere fact that the Church has not declared his heresy!

    But if Dr. Lamont is correct in his presentation of St. Bellarmine’s position (ie., no need for Church Intervention), then Francis might not even be pope today.

    That is why I say resolving the discrepancy is critical.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10313
    • Reputation: +6220/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #3 on: October 25, 2019, 02:36:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Step 1:  Determine/declare that the pope is a manifest heretic.  (Required by all major theologians).
    .
    Step 2:  (debatable).  Does the Church need to declare the former pope is deposed?
    .
    The Church has yet to do either step.  Step 1 is a necessity, which is why ‘OnePeterFive’ is calling for the Church officials to corner the pope on his errors.  If the Church determines that the pope is a manifest heretic, then the pope would depose himself.  But not before. 
    Logged

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2246
    • Reputation: +1484/-605
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #4 on: October 25, 2019, 02:40:00 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on October 25, 2019, 02:06:08 PM
    Disagree:

    If the Siscoe/Salza interpretation of Bellarmine is correct, we know Francis has not been deposed with infallible certitude, by the mere fact that the Church has not declared his heresy!

    But if Dr. Lamont is correct in his presentation of St. Bellarmine’s position (ie., no need for Church Intervention), then Francis might not even be pope today.

    That is why I say resolving the discrepancy is critical.
    It would be almost irrelevant if the Cardinals had immediately leapt into action the moment he made his heresy manifest.  It is only because this thing has been dragging on for decades that we have this problem.  But that just shows that it wasn't just the pope who left the Church.  It is also true that the Cardinals almost entirely fell into heresy as well.  And that allowed the "pope" to remove all Catholic bishops and replace them with heretics and perverts.  It also allowed him to replace Catholic ordination/consecration rites with non-Catholic pseudo rites.  So the Conciliar Church has no Catholic clergy/hierarchy at all.  There's no need to declare or depose anyone or anything in the Conciliar Church because it's not the Catholic Church (as +Lefebvre himself explicitly said publicly many times).  There is only the need for Catholic clergy to elect a true Catholic pope.  It took the Church centuries to declare the Anglican orders invalid.  Meanwhile, it was already assumed that they were invalid.  That's where we Catholics are now.  We just assume the whole Conciliar Church is an invalid fraud.  We're moving on now.  Slowly.
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15064
    • Reputation: +9980/-3161
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #5 on: October 25, 2019, 02:46:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 25, 2019, 02:36:49 PM
    Step 1:  Determine/declare that the pope is a manifest heretic.  (Required by all major theologians).
    .
    Step 2:  (debatable).  Does the Church need to declare the former pope is deposed?
    .
    The Church has yet to do either step.  Step 1 is a necessity, which is why ‘OnePeterFive’ is calling for the Church officials to corner the pope on his errors.  If the Church determines that the pope is a manifest heretic, then the pope would depose himself.  But not before.

    Your "Step 1" is ambiguous:

    Who is determining and declaring?  

    According to Lamont's take on Bellarmine, no Church involvement is required (which would also mean the theologians are NOT unanimous).  

    This implies any Catholic can make a determination for himself.  I believe this would be ruinous for Church unity and cause schisms, which makes it hard to believe Bellarmine would really have thought like this.

    But according to Siscoe/Salza's take on Bellarmine, yes, the Church must be involved.

    Sure wish I could read Bellarmine in Latin.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15064
    • Reputation: +9980/-3161
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #6 on: October 25, 2019, 02:50:42 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Clemens Maria on October 25, 2019, 02:40:00 PM
    It would be almost irrelevant if the Cardinals had immediately leapt into action the moment he made his heresy manifest.  It is only because this thing has been dragging on for decades that we have this problem.  But that just shows that it wasn't just the pope who left the Church.  It is also true that the Cardinals almost entirely fell into heresy as well.  And that allowed the "pope" to remove all Catholic bishops and replace them with heretics and perverts.  It also allowed him to replace Catholic ordination/consecration rites with non-Catholic pseudo rites.  So the Conciliar Church has no Catholic clergy/hierarchy at all.  There's no need to declare or depose anyone or anything in the Conciliar Church because it's not the Catholic Church (as +Lefebvre himself explicitly said publicly many times).  There is only the need for Catholic clergy to elect a true Catholic pope.  It took the Church centuries to declare the Anglican orders invalid.  Meanwhile, it was already assumed that they were invalid.  That's where we Catholics are now.  We just assume the whole Conciliar Church is an invalid fraud.  We're moving on now.  Slowly.

    You are an ecclesiavacantist conclavist (i.e., you just said there are no Catholic clergy, yet the catholic clergy must elect a pope)?

    By "clergy," then, you must refer to some independents?

    Serious question: Why then do you not accept "Pope" Michael?

    PS: Lefebvre did not believe the conciliar and Catholic churches were entirely distinct (See good article here: http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/)
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Nishant Xavier

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2873
    • Reputation: +1893/-1750
    • Gender: Male
    • Immaculate Heart of Mary, May Your Triumph Come!
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #7 on: October 25, 2019, 02:54:08 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • The approach in the Open Letter is actually quite interesting and has much to commend it. For one thing, the signatories explicitly avoid choosing and openly declare they have no intention of choosing one side between Cardinal Cajetan and Cardinal St. Robert Bellarmine - that, they say, is for the Church Herself i.e. the Bishops to determine and rule on how they wish to proceed. It's actually an eminently defensible canonical procedure, it leaves everything for the Bishops to judge. Unfortunately, I don't think many Bishops have stepped up.

    There are some 5000+ Bishops in the Catholic Church. Supposing at least 50 Bishops, 1%, begin to say, something like, "The Pope has fallen into heresy. That is sure and clear. Now we're working out whether he is obstinate, or ready to correct and retract." At that point, we could consider whether the Pope was losing his office. Both the heresy and the pertinacity must be manifest, i.e. the Pope must be manifestly obstinate in defending his heresy, even knowing he contradicts the Church in doing so. At that time, no longer universally accepted, he would fall from office. And then the Bishops of the Church could declare this fact, and then with Cardinals elect a new Pope.

    It's unlikely all this will go ahead right now - but at least one good thing has come out of all this, the heretics in the Vatican now know the Traditional and even Conservative world is watching and won't just let them get away with anything. I think the best thing to do would be for good Bishops and Cardinals, like in their recent declaration of Truths, to define a few important dogmatic Truths taught by Tradition, and say that anyone who teaches otherwise, by the Church's Traditional Teaching, is anathema. Or, they could all profess the anti-Modernist Oath, or some other traditional Creed, like the Tridentine profession of Faith, and demand the Pope profess it. Or so on. But they have to step up now, imho, otherwise the process can't proceed much, since by divine law, they are the only judges with habitual ordinary jurisdiction in the Church beside the Pope.
    Logged
    "We wish also to make amends for the insults to which Your Vicar on earth and Your Priests are everywhere subjected [above all by schismatic sedevacantists - Nishant Xavier], for the profanation, by conscious neglect or Terrible Acts of Sacrilege, of the very Sacrament of Your Divine Love; and lastly for the Public Crimes of Nations who resist the Rights and The Teaching Authority of the Church which You have founded." - Act of Reparation to the Sacred Heart of Lord Jesus.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15064
    • Reputation: +9980/-3161
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #8 on: October 25, 2019, 02:58:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: XavierSem on October 25, 2019, 02:54:08 PM
    ...but at least one good thing has come out of all this, the heretics in the Vatican now know the Traditional and even Conservative world is watching and won't just let them get away with anything...

    Well, the conservatives might not let them get away with it, but the silence coming from Menzingen is deafening.  They want their deal.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Nishant Xavier

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2873
    • Reputation: +1893/-1750
    • Gender: Male
    • Immaculate Heart of Mary, May Your Triumph Come!
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #9 on: October 25, 2019, 03:00:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • As discussed, Rev. Fr. Pagliarani, Superior General, said recently, to the question, "In your opinion, what should these prelates and faithful do who have at heart the future of the Church?

    First of all, they should have the lucidity and courage to recognize that there is a continuity between the teachings of the Council, the popes of the post-conciliar era, and the current pontificate. Citing the magisterium of "Saint" John Paul II, for example, to oppose Pope Francis's innovations is a very bad remedy, one that is doomed to failure from the outset. A good doctor cannot simply use a few stitches to close a wound without first evacuating the infection inside the wound. Far from despising these efforts, it is a matter of charity to indicate where the root of the problems lies.

    To give a concrete example of this contradiction, it is sufficient to mention one name among others: that of Cardinal Müller. He is presently the most virulent opponent of Amoris lætitia, the Instrumentum laboris, and the Curia's reform project. He uses very strong language, even talking about "breaking with Tradition." And yet, this cardinal who has the fortitude to publicly denounce these errors is the same one who wanted to impose the acceptance of the whole Council and the post-conciliar magisterium on the Society of Saint Pius X (in continuity with his predecessors and successors at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). Regardless of the Society and its positions, Cardinal Müller’s criticism, which focuses only on the symptoms without going back to their cause, gives rise to a most damaging and illogical situation." https://sspx.org/en/church-its-head-50632

    See also: Although arguing at great length that the cause of the disaster of this pontificate lies squarely at the feet of the Second Vatican Council, the Superior General is not dismissing the radical nature of the current pontificate. He describes Amoris Laetitia in the following dramatic fashion: “Amoris lætitia represents, in the history of the Church in recent years, what the atomic bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are in the modern history of Japan: humanely speaking, the damage is irreparable. It is undoubtedly the most revolutionary act of Pope Francis.” https://catholicfamilynews.com/blog/2019/09/17/a-true-doctor-of-souls-diagnoses-the-cancer-that-produced-the-malignant-tumor-of-the-pope-francis-pontificate-an-interview-of-father-davide-pagliarani/
    Logged
    "We wish also to make amends for the insults to which Your Vicar on earth and Your Priests are everywhere subjected [above all by schismatic sedevacantists - Nishant Xavier], for the profanation, by conscious neglect or Terrible Acts of Sacrilege, of the very Sacrament of Your Divine Love; and lastly for the Public Crimes of Nations who resist the Rights and The Teaching Authority of the Church which You have founded." - Act of Reparation to the Sacred Heart of Lord Jesus.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10313
    • Reputation: +6220/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #10 on: October 25, 2019, 03:01:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    According to Dr. Lamont, St. Bellarmine’s position is, “that a manifestly heretical pope loses the papacy ipso facto, with no need or possibility for an intervention of the Church.”
    "Manifest" heresy means that the Church has determined, through St Paul's 2 rebuke process (from Scripture), that a person is pernicious/obstinate in their error.  In regards to the pope, the only Catholics who could determine such, would be the Cardinals, which is what +Burke stated and why they sent +Francis the "dubia" letter.
    .
    This is also why 'OnePeterFive' is asking Church leaders to continue the dubia process and corner +Francis on his heresies, so as to determine if he is pernicious/obstinate.
    .
    Once such pernicious/obstinacy is determined, then a person is declared manifest and they would fall from office immediately (i.e. they would judge themselves). 
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41910
    • Reputation: +23950/-4345
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #11 on: October 25, 2019, 03:04:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 25, 2019, 02:36:49 PM
    Step 1:  Determine/declare that the pope is a manifest heretic.  (Required by all major theologians).

    Well, Determine vs. Declare are the sticking points.  I believe that "determination" is key and not declaration.  Declaration may be a part of the Church's determination process (if, for instance, the Church is divided on the matter), but I don't believe that the declaration has any other effect.  In cases where the Church might be unanimous and the situation is obvious (e.g. Bergoglio were to come out and state, "I know that the Church teaches Jesus is God, but I don't believe it."), there's no need for ANY declaration whatsoever, since it would simply be obvious.  Certainly the Church needs to decide whether she believes the man to be a Catholic or not.  And I believe that to be St. Robert Bellarmine's meaning.  S&S keep using language that the Church must find the Pope juridically guilty of a crime, as if the Church were passing sentence on him, and that's nothing short of a flavor of Conciliarism.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41910
    • Reputation: +23950/-4345
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #12 on: October 25, 2019, 03:07:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 25, 2019, 03:01:07 PM
    "Manifest" heresy means that the Church has determined, through St Paul's 2 rebuke process (from Scripture), that a person is pernicious/obstinate in their error.

    But rebukes are a process thing, and there's no magic (or canonical) effect from the rebukes.  If Bergoglio just admits it, "Hey, the Church teaches this dogma, but I don't believe it." ... there's no need for any rebuke whatsoever.  That is only in the case of Bergoglio insisting that he's orthodox when the Church says otherwise.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41910
    • Reputation: +23950/-4345
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #13 on: October 25, 2019, 03:16:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on October 25, 2019, 02:46:22 PM
    According to Lamont's take on Bellarmine, no Church involvement is required (which would also mean the theologians are NOT unanimous).  

    But here's the key to Bellarmine.  Manifest heresy deposes ipso facto.  But manifest to WHOM?  To my 85-year-old Aunt Flo?  Obviously not.  But, rather, to the Universal Church.  When St. Robert speaks of determining heresy, it's a question of the Church coming to RECOGNIZE it, to make up her mind.  If some process is needed, it's because the Church is divided, and there must be a way for the Church to "make up her mind," so to speak.

    Let's say 50% of the Church considered the Pope a heretic, but 50% did not.  How does one resolve this impasse?  What is the actual "mind of the Church"?  Heresy has become manifest to half the Church?  Heresy has become manifest to one person?  Heresy has become manifest to 25 people?  Here we have the case of a Papa Dubius, where there's neither universal acceptance nor universal rejection.  Now, what if it was 75% thinking Francis is just dandy, while 25% think he's a heretic?  Those 75% convene a Council and declare Francis orthodox?  But what's stopping that 75% from being wrong and perhaps even heretical themselves?

    This is a colossal mess.  There's no simple or simplistic answer.  I believe we are in just such a Papa Dubius situation.

    Let's say I and thousands of Catholics have serious grounds for considering him a heretic.  Am I now required to shut up and pretend that what he's spouting is NOT heresy (when I obviously know that it is) just because the rest of the Church hasn't come around yet?  S&S would have to say yes, that it's dogmatic fact that he's Pope.  But then I cannot even BEGIN to raise the question of possible heresy, since that would make me a heretic and a rejecter of dogmatic fact.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10313
    • Reputation: +6220/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #14 on: October 25, 2019, 03:24:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • “Ipso facto” penalties are part of canon law.  So, yes, the rebuke process is related to and has a “juridical effect”.  The declaration of manifest heresy logically follows the determination/rebuke process.  
    .
    Even if the pope came out tomorrow and said “I don’t care about doctrine, this is what I believe.”  The Church would still need to declare him a heretic.  You may not need any rebukes (since the former pope was belligerent about his error), but a declaration is necessary, just for Church unity’s sake.  And also for canon law’s sake.  While an “ipso facto” penalty has an immediate effect, Church law would still have to “rubber stamp” that thr former pope did say “x heresy” on “x date”, to record the matter.  The Church is a government, let’s not forget.  
    .
    One could argue that the process of electing a new pope would necessarily presume the former pope is not valid (and that’s true) but processes and clarity in the law are important.  Personal decisions and personal judgements have no place in canon law, which is part of the justice system.  “The wheels of justice turn slowly” as it is said.  How much more deliberate is the Church, looking back at history?  We must have patience and wait for the Church to act.  
    Logged
    Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
    « previous next »