Author Topic: Eleison Comments - Two Kinds of Bishop V (no. 839) (Read 10750 times)

NIFH · « **Reply #75 on:** August 21, 2023, 06:38:16 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on August 21, 2023, 11:41:50 AM

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.

1-2. "Now, the acceptance of the Church is realized both negatively, by the fact that the Church does not contradict the news of the election wherever it becomes known, and positively, by the gradual acceptance of the prelates of the Church, beginning with the place of the election, and spreading throughout the rest of the world. As soon as men see or hear that a Pope has been elected, and that the election is not contested, they are obliged to believe that that man is the Pope, and to accept him."

Not acceptance by a succeeding pope, or a Council. Acceptance by the prelates of the world.

3. That section of the treatise deals only with a lawfully elected pope. He does not say the principle applies only to a lawfully elected pope. Bring yourself to read the rest of the treatise.

4-5. Not all 'de Fide' truths are dogmas proper.

6. Your reasoning is founded on errors in the previous numbers.

Angelus · « **Reply #76 on:** August 21, 2023, 07:46:40 PM »

Quote from: NIFH on August 21, 2023, 06:38:16 PM

1-2. "Now, the acceptance of the Church is realized both negatively, by the fact that the Church does not contradict the news of the election wherever it becomes known, and positively, by the gradual acceptance of the prelates of the Church, beginning with the place of the election, and spreading throughout the rest of the world. As soon as men see or hear that a Pope has been elected, and that the election is not contested, they are obliged to believe that that man is the Pope, and to accept him."

Not acceptance by a succeeding pope, or a Council. Acceptance by the prelates of the world.

3. That section of the treatise deals only with a lawfully elected pope. He does not say the principle applies only to a lawfully elected pope. Bring yourself to read the rest of the treatise.

4-5. Not all 'de Fide' truths are dogmas proper.

6. Your reasoning is founded on errors in the previous numbers.

1-2. As I explained to Sean in the other thread, John of St. Thomas is not discussing infallible "dogmatic facts," truth, or teaching in that particular quote. He is explaining that Catholics should not have unreasonable doubts about a papal elections, assuming that two things are true:

a) the Church does not contradict the "news of the election," meaning that the Church authorities don't positively deny that the election took place.

b) the "prelates of the Church" gradually accept the news of the election, meaning that "the election is not contested."

But IF and ONLY IF those two things are true, are Catholics "obliged to believe that that man is the Pope." And this "obligation" is not irrevocable. It is not an infallible dogma, de fide. It only becomes de fide (infallible) when it has been declared as a "dogmatic fact" by the infallible teaching authority of the Church. And the "acceptance" process happens "gradually." The "prelates of the Church" do not immediately accept, upon hearing the news. They are allowed to judge and consider any concerns from those who might wish to "contest" the election for some reason.

3. Thanks for admitting that John of St. Thomas limits the "de fide" (infallible) aspect to "a lawfully-elected Pope." This is true, of course. If John of St. Thomas really meant that non-lawfully-elected Popes could be the beneficiaries a "de fide" declaration, then why did he bother to add that detail (rite electum) to his description? Rather than telling me to read the rest of the treatise to find the contrary, you should provide the evidence for your argument, since you claim to know that it exists. Please provide quotes with context.

4. You say "not all 'de fide' truths are dogmas proper." What is your point? A "dogmatic fact" declared infallibly by those with infallible teaching authority in the Church is a dogma. The Council of Constance declared that Pope Gregory XI was the true Pope infallibly. That was/is a "dogmatic fact." It is "of divine faith" (de fide) in John of St. Thomas's language, because the Church's infallible teachers when teaching infallibly must be taken on faith, i.e., they cannot be doubted by Catholics.

5. I asked you to tell me where I can find this imaginary "dogma" of "universal peaceful acceptance" discussed in Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. You did not do that. Because, as I have been telling you, there is no such dogma of "universal and peaceful acceptance of a Pope." There are only specific actions which have declared "dogmatic facts" concerning certain Popes whose elections were contested.

6. Again, turning to Bergoglio. The declaration of "universal peaceful acceptance" (a "dogmatic fact") 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 could never be such a declaration of "dogmatic fact" made in Bergoglio's case anyway because his election was unlawful. And, as John of St. Thomas says, only a lawfully-elected Pope can be universally and peacefully accepted by the Church.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #77 on:** August 21, 2023, 08:17:33 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on August 21, 2023, 07:46:40 PM

1-2. As I explained to Sean in the other thread, John of St. Thomas is not discussing infallible "dogmatic facts," truth, or teaching in that particular quote.

No. He said it’s de fide, and those who would refuse to accept a universally recognized pope are not merely schismatics, but heretics as well.

Please review the quotes in the other thread, especially this one:

“Whoever would deny that a particular man is Pope after he has been peacefully and canonically accepted, would not only be a schismatic, but also a heretic; for, not only would he rend the unity of the Church… but he would also add to this a perverse doctrine, by denying that the man accepted by the Church is to be regarded as the Pope and the rule of faith. Pertinent here is the teaching of St. Jerome (Commentary on Titus, chapter 3) and of St. Thomas (IIa IIae Q. 39 A. 1 ad 3), that every schism concocts some heresy for itself, in order to justify its withdrawal from the Church. Thus, although schism is distinct from heresy, in most cases it is accompanied by the latter, and prepares the way for it. In the case at hand, whoever would deny the proposition just stated would not be a pure schismatic, but also a heretic, as Suarez also reckons (above, in the solution to the fourth objection)."[10]

NIFH · « **Reply #78 on:** August 21, 2023, 08:34:35 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on August 21, 2023, 07:46:40 PM

1-2. As I explained to Sean in the other thread, John of St. Thomas is not discussing infallible "dogmatic facts," truth, or teaching in that particular quote. He is explaining that Catholics should not have unreasonable doubts about a papal elections, assuming that two things are true:

a) the Church does not contradict the "news of the election," meaning that the Church authorities don't positively deny that the election took place.

b) the "prelates of the Church" gradually accept the news of the election, meaning that "the election is not contested."

But IF and ONLY IF those two things are true, are Catholics "obliged to believe that that man is the Pope." And this "obligation" is not irrevocable. It is not an infallible dogma, de fide. It only becomes de fide (infallible) when it has been declared as a "dogmatic fact" by the infallible teaching authority of the Church. And the "acceptance" process happens "gradually." The "prelates of the Church" do not immediately accept, upon hearing the news. They are allowed to judge and consider any concerns from those who might wish to "contest" the election for some reason.

3. Thanks for admitting that John of St. Thomas limits the "de fide" (infallible) aspect to "a lawfully-elected Pope." This is true, of course. If John of St. Thomas really meant that non-lawfully-elected Popes could be the beneficiaries a "de fide" declaration, then why did he bother to add that detail (rite electum) to his description? Rather than telling me to read the rest of the treatise to find the contrary, you should provide the evidence for your argument, since you claim to know that it exists. Please provide quotes with context.

4. You say "not all 'de fide' truths are dogmas proper." What is your point? A "dogmatic fact" declared infallibly by those with infallible teaching authority in the Church is a dogma. The Council of Constance declared that Pope Gregory XI was the true Pope infallibly. That was/is a "dogmatic fact." It is "of divine faith" (de fide) in John of St. Thomas's language, because the Church's infallible teachers when teaching infallibly must be taken on faith, i.e., they cannot be doubted by Catholics.

5. I asked you to tell me where I can find this imaginary "dogma" of "universal peaceful acceptance" discussed in Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. You did not do that. Because, as I have been telling you, there is no such dogma of "universal and peaceful acceptance of a Pope." There are only specific actions which have declared "dogmatic facts" concerning certain Popes whose elections were contested.

6. Again, turning to Bergoglio. The declaration of "universal peaceful acceptance" (a "dogmatic fact") 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 could never be such a declaration of "dogmatic fact" made in Bergoglio's case anyway because his election was unlawful. And, as John of St. Thomas says, only a lawfully-elected Pope can be universally and peacefully accepted by the Church.

1-2. That particular quote contains the explanation of what constitutes universal acceptance. He clarified it as the acceptance of the prelates. Later comes the quote you seem not to be able to address. "... rendered de Fide...BY the acceptance of the Church". Not by a particular ruling of a pope or Council, as you thought.

3. Yikes, slow down when you read. I said the precise opposite twice already. He does not limit it to lawfully elected popes. That segment of the treatise is limited to the case of lawfully elected popes. The case of unlawful elections is addressed in a subsequent segment, and it doesn't say what you want it to say.

4-5. The point is, John of St. Thomas uses the term 'de Fide'. He does not use the term 'dogma'. They are not always the same thing. Not everything 'de Fide' is defined by popes or Councils.

To spell it out, I do not have to find a dogma. John does not say it is a dogma. He says universal acceptance is 'of the Faith'. He explains how it is of the Faith, just slow down a bit and read it. I'm not going to defend his explanation here. If you want to deny he disagrees with you, stop running around and look at the quote you've consistently evaded.

Angelus · « **Reply #79 on:** August 21, 2023, 08:51:33 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2023, 08:17:33 PM

No. He said it’s de fide, and those who would refuse to accept a universally recognized pope are not merely schismatics, but heretics as well.

Please review the quotes in the other thread, especially this one:

“Whoever would deny that a particular man is Pope after he has been peacefully and canonically accepted, would not only be a schismatic, but also a heretic; for, not only would he rend the unity of the Church… but he would also add to this a perverse doctrine, by denying that the man accepted by the Church is to be regarded as the Pope and the rule of faith. Pertinent here is the teaching of St. Jerome (Commentary on Titus, chapter 3) and of St. Thomas (IIa IIae Q. 39 A. 1 ad 3), that every schism concocts some heresy for itself, in order to justify its withdrawal from the Church. Thus, although schism is distinct from heresy, in most cases it is accompanied by the latter, and prepares the way for it. In the case at hand, whoever would deny the proposition just stated would not be a pure schismatic, but also a heretic, as Suarez also reckons (above, in the solution to the fourth objection)."[10]

Sean, in my reply to NIFH, I was referring to a different quote from John of St. Thomas that you posted. NIFH then posted the exact same quote in his reply to me on this thread. It was this quote:

"Now, the acceptance of the Church is realized both negatively, by the fact that the Church does not contradict the news of the election wherever it becomes known, and positively, by the gradual acceptance of the prelates of the Church, beginning with the place of the election, and spreading throughout the rest of the world. As soon as men see or hear that a Pope has been elected, and that the election is not contested, they are obliged to believe that that man is the Pope, and to accept him."

Look closely at that quote above and you will see no reference to "de fide" from John of St. Thomas in that particular quote. So my comments to NIFH about that quote stand.

Now, getting to the quote you just posted in this thread, as I have said consistently, John of St. Thomas says that two things are required for the declaration of a "dogmatic fact" when there is a papal election controversy:

1. The Pope must have been lawfully-elected (as far as can be humanly known).

2. The de fide declaration that Pope so-and-so was the authentic Pope (and not an Antipope) must be done by an authority that possesses the gift of infallibility. A non-infallible teacher cannot teach infallibly. So only a Pope or a valid Ecuмenical Council must declare that a questionable Pope to be a true Pope.

In Bergoglio's case, neither of these conditions have been met. Therefore, John of St. Thomas's explanation cannot be applied in Bergoglio's case.

Finally, as I have said over and over again, Universi Dominici Gregis was the governing law in the 2013 papal election. It takes canonical precedence when judging the validity of that election, not the writings of John of St. Thomas or other theologians.

Angelus · « **Reply #80 on:** August 21, 2023, 08:56:10 PM »

Quote from: NIFH on August 21, 2023, 08:34:35 PM

That segment of the treatise is limited to the case of lawfully elected popes. The case of unlawful elections is addressed in a subsequent segment, and it doesn't say what you want it to say.

You make the above claim. Cite it. Show context.

Angelus · « **Reply #81 on:** August 21, 2023, 09:06:23 PM »

Quote from: NIFH on August 21, 2023, 08:34:35 PM

To spell it out, I do not have to find a dogma. John does not say it is a dogma. He says universal acceptance is 'of the Faith'. He explains how it is of the Faith, just slow down a bit and read it. I'm not going to defend his explanation here. If you want to deny he disagrees with you, stop running around and look at the quote you've consistently evaded.

What John of St. Thomas says is "of the faith" (aka "de fide," aka a "dogmatic fact") is any infallible declaration, promulgated by those granted the gift of infallible teaching in the Church, that a particular papal claimant, lawfully-elected, is/was the true Pope. That, and only that, is "de fide," according to John of St. Thomas.

And, again, Bergoglio has not been elected lawfully according to the papal election law, Universi Dominici Gregis. But even if you tried to claim that he had been lawfully-elected, he definitely has not been declared as infallibly "the Pope" by a later Pope or an Ecuмenical Council. So, this diversion into the writings of John of St. Thomas has no bearing on the status of Bergoglio.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #82 on:** August 21, 2023, 09:30:01 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on August 21, 2023, 09:06:23 PM

What John of St. Thomas says is "of the faith" (aka "de fide," aka a "dogmatic fact") is any infallible declaration, promulgated by those granted the gift of infallible teaching in the Church, that a particular papal claimant, lawfully-elected, is/was the true Pope. That, and only that, is "de fide," according to John of St. Thomas.

And, again, Bergoglio has not been elected lawfully according to the papal election law, Universi Dominici Gregis. But even if you tried to claim that he had been lawfully-elected, he definitely has not been declared as infallibly "the Pope" by a later Pope or an Ecuмenical Council. So, this diversion into the writings of John of St. Thomas has no bearing on the status of Bergoglio.

No, the church does not declare dogmatic facts; dogmatic facts are corollaries of dogma.

What JST has said, is that the universal and unanimous consent of the cardinals is like a definition of an ecuмenical council, and as such is de fide for whatever particular pope has received it.

NIFH · « **Reply #83 on:** August 21, 2023, 09:34:49 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on August 21, 2023, 09:06:23 PM

That, and only that, is "de fide," according to John of St. Thomas.

That, yes. Only that, no. Confer evaded quote.

Angelus · « **Reply #84 on:** August 21, 2023, 10:19:56 PM »

Quote from: NIFH on August 21, 2023, 09:34:49 PM

That, yes. Only that, no. Confer evaded quote.

Which quote are you saying that I have evaded? I thought that I had addressed the John of St. Thomas quotes that you provided. If I missed one, tell me which one.

Angelus · « **Reply #85 on:** August 21, 2023, 10:21:31 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on August 21, 2023, 09:30:01 PM

No, the church does not declare dogmatic facts; dogmatic facts are corollaries of dogma.

What JST has said, is that the universal and unanimous consent of the cardinals is like a definition of an ecuмenical council, and as such is de fide for whatever particular pope has received it.

Answered here in other thread.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #86 on:** August 21, 2023, 11:03:58 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on August 21, 2023, 10:21:31 PM

Answered here in other thread.

Refuted in the next post.

Yeti · « **Reply #87 on:** August 22, 2023, 12:45:54 AM »

Quote

I will try to go systematically through this exchange.

1. You stated that John of St. Thomas taught that

Quote

As I explained to Sean in the other thread, John of St. Thomas is not discussing ...

Quote

No. [John of St. Thomas] said it’s de fide

Quote

The point is, John of St. Thomas uses the term

Quote

I was referring to a different quote from John of St. Thomas

Quote

What John of St. Thomas says is "of the faith"

Quote

What JST has said, is that

Quote

I thought that I had addressed the John of St. Thomas quotes that you provided. If I missed one, tell me which one.

Man alive! You R&R people are absolutely obsessed with John of St. Thomas! And these quotes are from this page alone!! Would you even have heard of him if didn't teach that a pope who becomes a private heretic remains in office until he is deposed?

For you people, he is some sort of super-hero. He's like King Solomon, Christopher Columbus, Aristotle, St. Pius X, Thomas Edison, Google, Isaac Newton, Joseph Smith, Charlemagne, Mohammed, Batman, Alexander the Great, Jack Bauer and Donald Trump all wrapped into one!

Got a question? Consult John of St. Thomas! Why ask anyone else? Seriously, some of you people are like this:

"How about checking what St. Alphonsus has to say on the question?"
"Nah, why bother? John of St. Thomas knew more than he did."
"Or St. Robert Bellarmine?"
"That idiot? He was refuted by John of St. Thomas!"
"Or look in the Summa?"
"I just threw my Summa in the trash! It was wasting space on my shelf that I needed for the works of John of St. Thomas..."
"Or the Council of Trent?"
"I'm sure all they did at Trent was copy/paste John of St. Thomas. What else would they use?"

"Is it possible John of St. Thomas is wrong here?"

...........

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #88 on:** August 22, 2023, 05:49:51 AM »

Quote from: Yeti on August 22, 2023, 12:45:54 AM

Man alive! You R&R people are absolutely obsessed with John of St. Thomas! And these quotes are from this page alone!! Would you even have heard of him if didn't teach that a pope who becomes a private heretic remains in office until he is deposed?

For you people, he is some sort of super-hero. He's like King Solomon, Christopher Columbus, Aristotle, St. Pius X, Thomas Edison, Google, Isaac Newton, Joseph Smith, Charlemagne, Mohammed, Batman, Alexander the Great, Jack Bauer and Donald Trump all wrapped into one!

Got a question? Consult John of St. Thomas! Why ask anyone else? Seriously, some of you people are like this:

"How about checking what St. Alphonsus has to say on the question?"
"Nah, why bother? John of St. Thomas knew more than he did."
"Or St. Robert Bellarmine?"
"That idiot? He was refuted by John of St. Thomas!"
"Or look in the Summa?"
"I just threw my Summa in the trash! It was wasting space on my shelf that I needed for the works of John of St. Thomas..."
"Or the Council of Trent?"
"I'm sure all they did at Trent was copy/paste John of St. Thomas. What else would they use?"

"Is it possible John of St. Thomas is wrong here?"

...........

Not likely, as St. Alphonsus and Billot agree with him.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #89 on:** August 22, 2023, 06:18:24 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on August 22, 2023, 05:49:51 AM

Not likely, as St. Alphonsus and Billot agree with him.

On what point exactly does Saint Alphonsus agree with JST?

Author Topic: Eleison Comments - Two Kinds of Bishop V (no. 839) (Read 10750 times)

NIFH

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

Angelus

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

SeanJohnson

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)

Angelus

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

Angelus

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

SeanJohnson

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)

Angelus

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

SeanJohnson

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

Yeti

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

SeanJohnson

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

Quo vadis Domine

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