Author Topic: Eleison Comments - Two Kinds of Bishop V (no. 839) (Read 10247 times)

Angelus · « **Reply #60 on:** August 18, 2023, 07:10:32 PM »

Quote from: NIFH on August 18, 2023, 06:19:41 PM

In that sentence, he says it is a dogmatic fact that Pope so-and-so was indeed pope. Dogmatic facts can only follow on dogmatic teachings. Every effect requires a proportionate cause. No principle which is merely probable can establish a certain conclusion. By denoting a fact as 'de Fide' it is necessarily implicit in that assertion that the principle from which the conclusion stems is likewise 'de Fide'.

So we agree that in that statement of John of St. Thomas where he used the words "de fide," he was referring to a "dogmatic fact."

A "dogmatic fact" occurs when immemorial Tradition or a papal declaration or an ecuмenical Council establishes that such and such particular person or event had a particular quality. For example, that Pope Linus was the second Pope would be a "dogmatic fact" of the first type. Or that Pope Gregory XII, according to the Council of Constance, was the true Pope is a "dogmatic fact" of the third type.

John of St. Thomas was absolutely not saying, in the quote that you provided, that the Church dogmatically teaches that a papal claimant, not "duly elected," can be established as Pope. In fact, John of St. Thomas says that only a "duly elected" Pope can be the subject matter of the Universal and Peaceful Acceptance doctrine.

Here is the quote that I provided from John of St. Thomas again:

X. Sit conclusio : De fide divina est immediate hunc hominem in particulari rite electum et acceptatum ab Ecclesia esse summum pontificem, et successorem Petri, no solum quoad se, se detiam quoad nos, licet multo magis quoad nos id manifestur, quando de facto pontifex aliquid definit, nec in ipso exercitio, et quasi practice aliquis Catholicorum ab hac conclusione dessentit, licet in acta signato, et quasi speculative putent se id non credere fide divina.

Translation

“Our conclusion is the following. It is immediately of divine faith that this man in particular, properly elected and accepted by the Church, is the supreme pontiff and the successor of Peter, not only quoad se (in himself) but also quoad nos (in relation to us) —although it is made much more manifest quoad nos (to us) when de facto the pope defines something. In practice, no Catholic disagrees with our conclusion, even though, when he considers it as a theoretical question, he might not think that he believes it with divine faith. (…)”

NIFH · « **Reply #61 on:** August 18, 2023, 08:01:47 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on August 18, 2023, 07:10:32 PM

In fact, John of St. Thomas says that only a "duly elected" Pope can be the subject matter of the Universal and Peaceful Acceptance doctrine.

“Our conclusion is the following. It is immediately of divine faith that this man in particular, properly elected and accepted by the Church, is the supreme pontiff and the successor of Peter, not only quoad se (in himself) but also quoad nos (in relation to us) —although it is made much more manifest quoad nos (to us) when de facto the pope defines something. In practice, no Catholic disagrees with our conclusion, even though, when he considers it as a theoretical question, he might not think that he believes it with divine faith. (…)”

You're still zooming in too closely on that section of the treatise. There he is only saying that a properly elected candidate is 'de Fide' the pope. That is not the same thing as saying that only a properly elected candidate is 'de Fide' the pope.

Zoom out a little bit and continue reading to where he treats of the case of improper election.

"...if the Cardinals elect him in a questionable manner, the Church can correct their election, as the Council of Constance determined in its 41st session. Hence, the proposition [that the one elected is a true Pope] is rendered de fide, as already has been explained, by the acceptance of the Church..."

Angelus · « **Reply #62 on:** August 18, 2023, 08:57:23 PM »

Quote from: NIFH on August 18, 2023, 08:01:47 PM

You're still zooming in too closely on that section of the treatise. There he is only saying that a properly elected candidate is 'de Fide' the pope. That is not the same thing as saying that only a properly elected candidate is 'de Fide' the pope.

Zoom out a little bit and continue reading to where he treats of the case of improper election.

"...if the Cardinals elect him in a questionable manner, the Church can correct their election, as the Council of Constance determined in its 41st session. Hence, the proposition [that the one elected is a true Pope] is rendered de fide, as already has been explained, by the acceptance of the Church..."

You are taking us back in circles. The 41st Session of Constance deals with establishing Martin V as the Pope by "dogmatic fact." The 41st session of Constance did not erect a Catholic theological dogma related to papal elections to be used universally in the future.

If you are certain of your position, show me the quote from the Council of Constance where this universal dogma (not a "dogmatic fact") is declared explicitly.

Catholic Knight · « **Reply #63 on:** August 19, 2023, 08:44:05 AM »

Quote from: NIFH on August 18, 2023, 06:00:09 PM

There is no record of Bergoglio teaching heresy and admitting it to be contrary to the teaching of the Church. That is formal heresy. As far as material heresy goes, Bergoglio is a champion.

One does not have to admit he holds a teaching contradictory to that of the Church is in order to be a formal heretic.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #64 on:** August 19, 2023, 09:21:23 AM »

Quote

One does not have to admit he holds a teaching contradictory to that of the Church is in order to be a formal heretic.

Then what is heresy?

Catholic Knight · « **Reply #65 on:** August 19, 2023, 10:00:04 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 19, 2023, 09:21:23 AM

Then what is heresy?

A proposition that contradicts a Church teaching that must be believed with Divine and Catholic Faith.

NIFH · « **Reply #66 on:** August 19, 2023, 07:45:27 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on August 18, 2023, 08:57:23 PM

If you are certain of your position, show me the quote from the Council of Constance where this universal dogma (not a "dogmatic fact") is declared explicitly.

It's not my position. I am nothing. I am not a Doctor of the Church, and I refuse to appoint myself one. My purpose has been to bring you to face the fact that you are opposing yourself to John of Saint Thomas.

Now that you seem to want to begin attacking his explanation, I do not feel called upon to accompany you in that enterprise as his advocate. Perhaps if you have time, once you have worked out in your own mind that you have intellectually vanquished John of St. Thomas, you will advance on Suarez, who likewise teaches universal acceptance as 'de Fide'. From there, I can betray to you the names of no less than 50 actual theologians who dare hold such an audacious position.

This is not what I advise. Everyone makes misstakes. No one knows everything, save God. One of the benefits of posting behind an anonymous username is how much easier it is to abandon an error. If we used our real names, our fallen human nature, ever prone to pride, would find it more difficult.

NIFH · « **Reply #67 on:** August 19, 2023, 08:01:09 PM »

Quote from: Catholic Knight on August 19, 2023, 10:00:04 AM

[Heresy is] A proposition that contradicts a Church teaching that must be believed with Divine and Catholic Faith.

Correct.

Now the distinctions.

Material vs. Formal:
Material--the matter of the proposition contradicts the Faith.
Formal--the proposer enunciates the contradiction with the Faith.

example:
Material heresy--"The Blessed Virgin was conceived with Original Sin."
Formal heresy--"The Catholic Church is wrong to teach the Immaculate Conception."

All formal heresies are material heresies.
Not all material heresies are formal heresies.
Many material heresies come from misunderstanding and/or ignorance.
Formal heresy only occurs when the speaker admits he is contradicting the Church.

Catholic Knight · « **Reply #68 on:** August 19, 2023, 08:29:50 PM »

Quote from: NIFH on August 19, 2023, 08:01:09 PM

Formal heresy only occurs when the speaker admits he is contradicting the Church.

Wrong. If that were the case, then every suspect brought to trial would not be convicted unless he admitted he is contradicting a Church teaching. However, pertinacity can be demonstrated with moral certitude without the suspect admitting his heresy.

"Thus it is proven that according to Catholic Doctrine, for one to be considered a formal heretic, it is not necessary that he, 'renounce the Church as the RULE of faith by PUBLIC PROFESSION', or explicitly admit that one is knowingly in heresy; but it suffices that one either 1) assertively state his disbelief in one single article of faith, because, one who offends against even one article is guilty of all, because disbelieving in one destroys the formal cause of faith from which that article depends; or, that the nature or circuмstances of ones words or deeds constitute moral certitude of formal heresy. Hence, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, who was a high official of the Roman Inquisition, and is a Doctor of the Church, teaches that, 'men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.'"

Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.

Angelus · « **Reply #69 on:** August 19, 2023, 09:27:18 PM »

Quote from: NIFH on August 19, 2023, 07:45:27 PM

It's not my position. I am nothing. I am not a Doctor of the Church, and I refuse to appoint myself one. My purpose has been to bring you to face the fact that you are opposing yourself to John of Saint Thomas.

Now that you seem to want to begin attacking his explanation, I do not feel called upon to accompany you in that enterprise as his advocate. Perhaps if you have time, once you have worked out in your own mind that you have intellectually vanquished John of St. Thomas, you will advance on Suarez, who likewise teaches universal acceptance as 'de Fide'. From there, I can betray to you the names of no less than 50 actual theologians who dare hold such an audacious position.

This is not what I advise. Everyone makes misstakes. No one knows everything, save God. One of the benefits of posting behind an anonymous username is how much easier it is to abandon an error. If we used our real names, our fallen human nature, ever prone to pride, would find it more difficult.

Your previous false claim was that John of St. Thomas stated that there was a universal Catholic dogma related to Universal Peaceful Acceptance. Your false evidence for that turned out to be his discussion of the particular "dogmatic fact" established during the 41st Session of Constance. A universal theological dogma and a particular "dogmatic fact" are not the same thing. Yet you, in your error, confound the two ideas. It is not John of St. Thomas who is wrong. It is your interpretation of John of St. Thomas that is wrong.

A "dogmatic fact" is nothing more than a particular ruling by a Pope or an Ecuмenical Council on some factual controversy. In the example you provided, the Council of Constance stated which particular papal claimants were actual Popes as opposed to the particular papal claimants who were Antipopes during the period of the Western Schism.

If we were to apply the idea of establishing a "dogmatic fact" to the case of Bergoglio, then we would need to wait for either a future Pope or Ecuмenical Council to rule on his antipapacy as a "dogmatic fact." So why are you claiming that the Bergoglio papacy is established as a "dogmatic fact?" There has been no dogmatic ruling by either a Pope or an Ecuмenical Council on Bergoglio's antipapacy.

NIFH · « **Reply #70 on:** August 20, 2023, 06:47:28 PM »

Quote from: Catholic Knight on August 19, 2023, 08:29:50 PM

Wrong. If that were the case, then every suspect brought to trial would not be convicted unless he admitted he is contradicting a Church teaching. However, pertinacity can be demonstrated with moral certitude without the suspect admitting his heresy.

"Thus it is proven that according to Catholic Doctrine, for one to be considered a formal heretic, it is not necessary that he, 'renounce the Church as the RULE of faith by PUBLIC PROFESSION', or explicitly admit that one is knowingly in heresy; but it suffices that one either 1) assertively state his disbelief in one single article of faith, because, one who offends against even one article is guilty of all, because disbelieving in one destroys the formal cause of faith from which that article depends; or, that the nature or circuмstances of ones words or deeds constitute moral certitude of formal heresy. Hence, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, who was a high official of the Roman Inquisition, and is a Doctor of the Church, teaches that, 'men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.'"

Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.

It is true that there is one way for a heretic to be declared a formal heretic without admitting it himself. This happens when a proper authority confronts him (in a trial for example) and says, "I am telling you that what you are saying is heresy, and if you do not retract, you will become a formal heretic". The problem today is that the pope himself is a material heretic, and no man on Earth has the proper authority over him to confront him authoritatively. I think St. Robert Bellarmine in addressing this possibility teaches that in such a case, the college of bishops could act as that authority. Well, let them do so, and Francis will lose his office if he does not retract.

St. Robert's statement, quoted by Fr. Kramer, needs to be understood in the light of the distinction between objective and subjective. It is the same distinction that helps us reconcile in our minds two quotes of Our Lord about judging others.

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them". (Matthew 7:15-6). Our Lord teaches us to judge our pastors.

"Judge not, that you may not be judged," (Matthew 7:1). Our Lord teaches us not to judge.

The distinction is that we must judge our pastors objectively, and must not judge our pastors subjectively.

Objective--relating to the facts
Subjective--relating to the person

Objective judgement of Pope Francis: This man smiles a lot and has nice and sweet words, but his teaching does not match the dogmas of the Faith. Francis is a wolf. Let's stay clear.

Subjective judgement of Pope Francis: This man, in his heart, hates Jesus Christ, and intends to lead souls to Hell.

The objective judgement is commanded by Our Lord, the subjective judgement is forbidden. We cannot rule out the possibility that Francis really intends to work against Jesus Christ, but only God knows. All we know is that Francis is objectively a wolf, and we must stay away.

This is what St. Robert means when he says to condemn someone as a heretic "pure and simple". The facts show that he is a material heretic, the fruits show us he is an objective wolf, but whether or not it is his personal intention, in the courtroom of our minds, the jury is still out.

NIFH · « **Reply #71 on:** August 20, 2023, 07:18:28 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on August 19, 2023, 09:27:18 PM

Your previous false claim was that John of St. Thomas stated that there was a universal Catholic dogma related to Universal Peaceful Acceptance. Your false evidence for that turned out to be his discussion of the particular "dogmatic fact" established during the 41st Session of Constance. A universal theological dogma and a particular "dogmatic fact" are not the same thing. Yet you, in your error, confound the two ideas. It is not John of St. Thomas who is wrong. It is your interpretation of John of St. Thomas that is wrong.

A "dogmatic fact" is nothing more than a particular ruling by a Pope or an Ecuмenical Council on some factual controversy. In the example you provided, the Council of Constance stated which particular papal claimants were actual Popes as opposed to the particular papal claimants who were Antipopes during the period of the Western Schism.

If we were to apply the idea of establishing a "dogmatic fact" to the case of Bergoglio, then we would need to wait for either a future Pope or Ecuмenical Council to rule on his antipapacy as a "dogmatic fact." So why are you claiming that the Bergoglio papacy is established as a "dogmatic fact?" There has been no dogmatic ruling by either a Pope or an Ecuмenical Council on Bergoglio's antipapacy.

The term he used is not 'universal dogma'. He said "de Fide". There are categories of 'de Fide' truths: 'de Fide divina', 'de Fide catolica', 'de Fide definita (dogma)', 'de Fide ecclesiastica'.

"...the Church can correct their election...". That's a principle, not just a historical fact.
"...rendered de Fide...BY the acceptance of the Church." Not by a stand-alone ruling of a particular Council.

Angelus · « **Reply #72 on:** August 20, 2023, 08:30:14 PM »

Quote from: NIFH on August 20, 2023, 07:18:28 PM

The term he used is not 'universal dogma'. He said "de Fide". There are categories of 'de Fide' truths: 'de Fide divina', 'de Fide catolica', 'de Fide definita (dogma)', 'de Fide ecclesiastica'.

"...the Church can correct their election...". That's a principle, not just a historical fact.
"...rendered de Fide...BY the acceptance of the Church." Not by a stand-alone ruling of a particular Council.

The words de fide simply mean it must be believed by faith. Your statement above shows a complete lack of understanding in this matter.

If you have Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, look at the Introduction, §6. Catholic Truths. You will see that Ott says that there are three types of "Catholic Truth":

1. Theological conclusions (conclusiones theologicae) in the strict sense.
2. Dogmatic facts (facta dogmatica).
3. Truths of reason, which have not been revealed, but which are intrinsically associated with the revealed truth.

Ott further says that "dogmatic facts" are...

"...historical truths which are not revealed but which are intrinsically connected with revealed truth, for example, the legality of a Pope or of a General Council, or the fact of he Roman episcopate of St. Peter."

You are not distinguishing properly between a "dogmatic fact" and a "dogmatic theological conclusion." The former deals with "particular" things. The latter deals with "universal" theological principles. In a categorical syllogism, a "dogmatic fact" would always be used in the Minor Premise, while the dogmatic theological principle would be used in the Major Premise. They are not interchangable.

NIFH · « **Reply #73 on:** August 20, 2023, 09:35:40 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on August 20, 2023, 08:30:14 PM

The words de fide simply mean it must be believed by faith. Your statement above shows a complete lack of understanding in this matter.

If you have Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, look at the Introduction, §6. Catholic Truths. You will see that Ott says that there are three types of "Catholic Truth":

1. Theological conclusions (conclusiones theologicae) in the strict sense.
2. Dogmatic facts (facta dogmatica).
3. Truths of reason, which have not been revealed, but which are intrinsically associated with the revealed truth.

Ott further says that "dogmatic facts" are...

"...historical truths which are not revealed but which are intrinsically connected with revealed truth, for example, the legality of a Pope or of a General Council, or the fact of he Roman episcopate of St. Peter."

You are not distinguishing properly between a "dogmatic fact" and a "dogmatic theological conclusion." The former deals with "particular" things. The latter deals with "universal" theological principles. In a categorical syllogism, a "dogmatic fact" would always be used in the Minor Premise, while the dogmatic theological principle would be used in the Major Premise. They are not interchangable.

Keep Ott open to the same page and read §8 for the categories of 'de Fide' truths.

You're evading the John of St. Thomas quote now. "...rendered de Fide...BY the acceptance of the Church."

Angelus · « **Reply #74 on:** August 21, 2023, 11:41:50 AM »

Quote from: NIFH on August 20, 2023, 09:35:40 PM

Keep Ott open to the same page and read §8 for the categories of 'de Fide' truths.

You're evading the John of St. Thomas quote now. "...rendered de Fide...BY the acceptance of the Church."

I will try to go systematically through this exchange.

1. You stated that John of St. Thomas taught that the "Universal Peaceful Acceptance" of a particular Pope can be "de fide." If understood correctly (as referring to a "dogmatic fact"), I agree that it is possible for a past papal claimant to be accepted by a Pope or and Ecuмenical Council.

2. Only a Church authority with the power to declare a "dogmatic fact" (such as a Pope or an Ecuмenical Council) can declare that a particular papal claimant was, in the past, actually a Pope. The opinions of laymen or Cardinals or Bishops or priest on the matter are not relevant. Again, only a Pope or an Ecuмenical council can declare a "dogmatic fact."

3. As John of St. Thomas says in another place (which I quoted earlier), that it is his opinion that only a lawfully/duly/properly elected papal claimant can be the subject of "universal peaceful acceptance" declaration made by a Pope or an Ecuмenical Council. An unlawfully-elected Pope would not be considered, according to John of St. Thomas.

4. The precise theological dogma involved when a Pope or an Ecuмenical Council declares a "dogmatic fact" is discussed in Ott in Part 2, Chapter 1, §13, 3: Bearers of Infallibility. In that section, Ott explains that ONLY the Pope and a valid Ecuмenical Council can declare new infallible dogmas.

5. There is no general theological dogma called "universal peaceful acceptance" dogma. You seem to have access to Ott's book. Tell me where I can find this "dogma" of "universal peaceful acceptance" discussed in Ott's book.

6. Now, turning to Bergoglio. The the declaration of "universal peaceful acceptance" does not apply to him for two reasons:

a) there has been no declaration of "dogmatic fact" made by a later Pope or an Ecuмenical Council that Bergoglio was a valid Pope.

b) there would never be such a declaration of "dogmatic fact" made in Bergoglio's case anyway because his election was unlawful.

Author Topic: Eleison Comments - Two Kinds of Bishop V (no. 839) (Read 10247 times)

Angelus

Re: Eleison Comments - Two Kinds of Bishop V (no. 839)

NIFH

Re: Eleison Comments - Two Kinds of Bishop V (no. 839)

Angelus

Re: Eleison Comments - Two Kinds of Bishop V (no. 839)

Catholic Knight

Re: Eleison Comments - Two Kinds of Bishop V (no. 839)

Pax Vobis

Re: Eleison Comments - Two Kinds of Bishop V (no. 839)

Catholic Knight

Re: Eleison Comments - Two Kinds of Bishop V (no. 839)

NIFH

Re: Eleison Comments - Two Kinds of Bishop V (no. 839)

NIFH

Re: Eleison Comments - Two Kinds of Bishop V (no. 839)

Catholic Knight

Re: Eleison Comments - Two Kinds of Bishop V (no. 839)

Angelus

Re: Eleison Comments - Two Kinds of Bishop V (no. 839)

NIFH

Re: Eleison Comments - Two Kinds of Bishop V (no. 839)

NIFH

Re: Eleison Comments - Two Kinds of Bishop V (no. 839)

Angelus

Re: Eleison Comments - Two Kinds of Bishop V (no. 839)

NIFH

Re: Eleison Comments - Two Kinds of Bishop V (no. 839)

Angelus

Re: Eleison Comments - Two Kinds of Bishop V (no. 839)