As 'fun' as this would be in today's modern world, I don't see how it would happen.
It appears St. Bernard Clairvaux wouldn't agree with his Excellency that Catholics are without a human solution to Bergolio's usurpation of the Seat of Peter.
Because after eight years of toil, he lead a Catholic army in 1138 to unseat the jew anti-Pope, Anacletus II.
Reflection on the Lessons St. Bernard gives usSaint Bernard was not a “recognize and resist” do nothing. He was not interested more in the money he could make at his Monastery by being friends with the antipope, than his duty before God to support the true Pope. Nor was he one of those who said, “there is no mechanism in the Church” to judge an antipope. And he certainly was not one to say of someone with a doubtful claim, that those who oppose such a claim are “extremists”. Nor was he one of those fakers, who claims that a Schism of the Church must only be settled by the clergy, and not by political intervention of the sovereign powers.He not only was in favor of imperfect Synods, as we call them today, he convened them. He was not only in favor of armed military solution, but he led them into battle! He was not oblivious to canonical facts, he accepted them and preached them. He was so unlike nearly everyone in the Sacred Hierarchy today, that he is an example and role model to be imitated by all, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, Monks and Laymen.So when next you hear someone say, there is nothing that we can do to rid the Church of an Antipope or heretic, or restore a true Pope to power, remember the example of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux and his 9 year long war against Anacletus II. Because Saint Bernard, a most devout son of the Blessed Virgin, a most zealous disciple of Jesus Christ, patron of the Templars and zealous supporter of the Second Crusade, did it all!
Source (https://www.fromrome.info/2020/02/02/st-bernard-of-clairvaux-patron-and-model-for-those-who-fight-against-antipopes/)
Bergoglio will be dead soon. But then what?
he may well himself share the conviction of many serious Catholics that this or that Conciliar Pope, anywhere from John XXIII to Francis inclusive, has not been a true Pope, but that conviction, shared by however many of them, can never amount to an official Church declaration
Has he not joined the ranks of the “sedevacantists,” ie. those Catholics who consider that the See of Peter has been vacant ever since that accursed Council did so much damage to the Catholic Church? How is it possible that truly Catholic Popes presided over that Council and its aftermath?
ultimately I agree with you; it's not possible that the Pope, who is protected by the Holy Ghost, could do things like this. There we agree; it's not possible, it doesn't fit, this destruction of the Church ...
In the Eleison Comments, Bishop Williamson paints +Vigano to be of the “we have no Official Church declaration” crowd.
I never thought to ask this in the past: why is Vigano called "Archbishop" in the NO? He was never an ordinary of a diocese.
Notice the red roses...
But the important point is that there's a holy Catholic precedent for unseating an usurper.
... by official members of the hierarchy, especially Cardinals.Is there any one in NewChurch that you would accept as a true pontiff? My question is serious not sarcastic.
One could "unseat" Bergoglio all you want, and even elect a new "Pope" in some Traditionalist conclave, but probably only a small percentage of Traditional Catholics would accept such an election. So what then, another Michael I or Pius XIII?
Is there any one in NewChurch that you would accept as a true pontiff? My question is serious not sarcastic.
In the meantime this apparent stop of Archbishop Vigano on the road to sedevacantism is highly reasonable, because it safeguards in a Catholic mind and heart a measure of respect for Catholic Authority which might otherwise go completely by the board. Woe to Catholic Tradition, or to its “Resistance,” that would lose all respect for Catholic Authority...
So, apparently, sedevacantists don't hold any measure of respect for Catholic Authority...? Yada, yada, yada... I'm glad I jettisoned that claptrap years ago. Feel free to disagree with the argument. But don't falsify it.
I repeat: we must recognize that a revolutionary process has been underway for over a century; a planned process which then materialized with the subversive action of the neomodernists at the Council and with their seizure of power throughout the post-conciliar period; a process in which all the Popes from John XXIII to Benedict XVI took an active part.
This actually answers the key question for me.
+Vigano says that it's morally certain that Jorge is not the pope.
+Vigano says he's not a "sedevacantist".
So how do they define the term "sedevacantist"?
When Bishop Williamson says that +Vigano stopped sort of sedevacantism (but doesn't rule out that +Vigano might go there), he subtly defines what he means (and likely +Vigano means, since they talk often).
+Williamson:
So, for them, the term "sedevacantist" refers to holding that all the V2 papal claimants were not legitimate.
We see also here Bishop Williamson's attitude about sedevacantism, calling it "the conviction of many serious Catholics". Hardly characterizing it as some "danger to souls" that must be avoided at all costs, as Plenus Venter alleged the Resistance holds. Of course, we also have a CI member who posted some correspondence with Father Chazal, where Father Chazal also holds that Bergoglio is not a true pope.
As for the "official declaration" part, I think almost every sedevacantist and certainly every sedeprivationist would absolutely agree with that, so that does not distinguish them from sedevacantists.
+Williamson also hints at the MAJOR of "sedevacantism", as I've laid it out before.
But, Your Excellency, Archbishop Lefebvre answered this question quite clearly:
Archbishop Lefebvre only hesitated on account of the MINOR, and the certainty with which he could explain how this destruction could have happened.
Hm? how does this work? Vigano is disregarding the pope. So, he is no longer New Order? People see him as next pope? How is that? By what authority? Is Vigano Pius X? Very confusing!
Honestly, I see him with maybe, maybe ordained as a priest, maybe. After that, nothing. He supported the heretical counterfeit church, new order and all. Now he is a changed man? I don't see it. He is not a bishop of new order. I do have the opinion that Vigano has bad connection with the conferences( bad company) he has roosted with. I don't trust him. I do think he speaks the words that itchy ears want to hear.
If prophecy is true, Roman will return to paganism. Yes, they are truly there. Satan will have roosted there, taken over the seat. True. Next, should be Chapter 12 of Daniel, no Mass for 3 and a half years, followed by the worst tribulation that the earth has ever had. Cardinal Manning stated this, which is prophecy.
So, IMO it is still coming and that is not the end of times, but latter times.
Vigano to me is like another Michael Voris, all dooms day, and no solution but himself.
This is the type of rash judgement that *justifiably* causes Ladislaus to get bent out of shape.
Hm? how does this work? Vigano is disregarding the pope. So, he is no longer New Order? People see him as next pope? How is that? By what authority? Is Vigano Pius X? Very confusing!Songbird, songbird, songbird! How I wish you would sing true.
Honestly, I see him with maybe, maybe ordained as a priest, maybe. After that, nothing. He supported the heretical counterfeit church, new order and all. Now he is a changed man? I don't see it. He is not a bishop of new order. I do have the opinion that Vigano has bad connection with the conferences( bad company) he has roosted with. I don't trust him. I do think he speaks the words that itchy ears want to hear.
If prophecy is true, Roman will return to paganism. Yes, they are truly there. Satan will have roosted there, taken over the seat. True. Next, should be Chapter 12 of Daniel, no Mass for 3 and a half years, followed by the worst tribulation that the earth has ever had. Cardinal Manning stated this, which is prophecy.
So, IMO it is still coming and that is not the end of times, but latter times.
Vigano to me is like another Michael Voris, all dooms day, and no solution but himself.
And most importantly, he does not lose "the office itself" until he has been condemned/banned/degraded by a competent authority (Canons 2266 and 2314).
Wrong. A public manifest formal heretic loses the office itself and the habitual jurisdiction that comes with the office. That is of Divine Law. No Ecclesiastical Law can contravene or lessen the effect of the Divine Law.Divine Law = law given to us directly from God.
Wrong. A public manifest formal heretic loses the office itself and the habitual jurisdiction that comes with the office. That is of Divine Law. No Ecclesiastical Law can contravene or lessen the effect of the Divine Law.
CK, you are not understanding the canonical process and the meaning of the words used in Canon Law. And the Church did not promulgate Canon Law that is contrary to divine law. Give yourself some time to learn what those Canons mean, and I believe you will see how everything fits together in a way that you will agree with.
Uhm, nobody says that Canon Law is contrary to Divine Law, but some aspects of Canon Law are not Divine Law but discipline that's been imposed by the Church.
Aspects of Canon Law that are not of Divine Law do not bind the Pope, nor can a Pope be deposed from office by operation of human law.
It's something "you are not understanding".
The Pope is always bound by the law.
No he's not, except if it's Divine Law. Much less can he be deposed by the operation of human law.
No, all theologians and Canonists agree that Pope are not subject to Canon Law and cannot be coerced by those parts of it that are not Divine (or natural) law, but merely say that the Pope should obey the laws they establish. Even the law about laws taking force in 3 months can easily be overridden by a single word from the Pope, if he were to issue a decree and simply say, "This law binds immediately." This binding in 3 months is simply a law that the Pope has already laid down and it effects the faithful and those are impacted by the law, but he is in no way bound to this or prevented from simply issuing a law that binds immediately (thus overriding Canon Law). Pope can dispense from (merely human) law at any time and for any reason, and he cannot be coerced by it. Nor can a Pope be excommunicated other than by the action of Divine Law. All theologians and Canon lawyers agree on this.
1. I am not denying that it is of divine law that a heretic will lose his office. However, the Church has implemented rules, out of caution, to determine with certainty that the person is truly a heretic before the final "deposition" from office occurs (level 3 excommunication). Before that final "deposition" occurs, a lawfully-elected Pope would be "removed," de jure, from his office. The office itself would become "vacant," de jure, and all of the powers that a Pope would normally have would be "suspended." That Pope would be "impounded." There would be a "privation" of his lawful exercise of his powers, from the moment of his apparent heresy.
2. So even the apparent heretic (ipso facto heretic) automatically loses (by suspension) all power of governance immediately, according to the Canons. From a practical standpoint, for the faithful Catholic, we must ignore him until he clarifies that he is not a heretic or he repents.
3. Legally, while a lawfully-elected Pope is suspended/impounded, the governance of the Church devolves to certain offices in the Apostolic See. Those officials in those offices govern the Church in a limited capacity ("they keep the lights on"), until the papal situation is resolved. It may not be "resolved" until the death of a lawfully-elected Pope simply because that lawfully-elected Pope may refuse to give up power, and he may have enough support in the Vatican to prevent any changes in his lifetime. But that does not give him any true legitimate authority. At that point he is an unlawful usurper.
4. If the apparent heretic (ipso facto heretic) was an honest person, he would want to clear his name. He would answer Dubia and fix any problems. Bergoglio is a communist infiltrator. He will never do that.
5. The above is what Canon Law requires if there is a lawfully-elected Pope. Bergoglio was not lawfully-elected, as I have demonstrated at www.antipope.com. So Bergoglio can simply be grabbed by the ears and thrown in jail. He has absolutely no right to hold the office of Pope. He is a law-breaker and excommunicated by agreeing to take over as Pope before the previous Pope had died.
Uhm, nobody says that Canon Law is contrary to Divine Law, but some aspects of Canon Law are not Divine Law but discipline that's been imposed by the Church.Thank you Ladislaus. That is Catholic common sense well expressed. And exactlly how Divine Law applies to a heretic Pope being convicted and losing jurisdiction and office is a contentious issue that the Church has never adjudicated on.
Aspects of Canon Law that are not of Divine Law do not bind the Pope, nor can a Pope be deposed from office by operation of human law.
It's something "you are not understanding".
Yes, if a certain law is "dispensable," then the Pope can dispense with it by "a single word." But the allowance for "dispensation" is itself part of the law. Some laws are not "dispensable" simply because a dispensation would be against "right reason" or agains "the common good." Aquinas explains these things in the Summa: an unjust law is no law at all.
Thank you Ladislaus. That is Catholic common sense well expressed. And exactlly how Divine Law applies to a heretic Pope being convicted and losing jurisdiction and office is a contentious issue that the Church has never adjudicated on.
"Bellarmine is clear and explicit on this general point: that the separation from the body of the Church, as well as loss of office and all jurisdiction, are accomplished by the very act of heresy, ex natura hæresis, and not by the judgment of the Church, or as a penalty for an ecclesiastical delict. This sententia is de fide regarding firstly the separation from the Church, in virtue of 1) the unanimity of the Fathers, 2) the teaching of the universal magisterium set forth in the Roman Catechism, and, 3) the teaching of Pius XII in Mystici Corporis; and secondly, it is de fide regarding the loss of office and jurisdiction, because of 1) the unanimity of the Fathers on this point which Bellarmine amply demonstrates in his refutation of Opinion No. 4, and 2) the canonical doctrine of the Church proposed by the papal ordinary magisterium in Canon 188. 4°; which, therefore, qualifies it as a doctrine pertaining to the universal and ordinary magisterium. Thus, it is not a mere question of law, but of definitive magisterial doctrine that heretics and schismatics are separated from the Church by their own actions suapte natura, apart from any ecclesiastical law or judgment; and that the consequent loss of office and jurisdiction is not the result of any penal sanction or any judgment pronounced by the Church, but is the direct effect of the act of defection from the Church, sine alia vi externa; which therefore, not by any human law, takes place ex natura hæresis or ex natura schismatis."One must ask oneself, CK, why Pope Urban VIII or some Pope after him did not excommunicate John of St Thomas for heresy, if this is de fide as Fr Kramer says. Obviously, Fr Kramer has an erroneous understanding of this issue. It sounds Catholic but it is not.
Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope (p. 480). Kindle Edition.
If the Church needs to determine with certainty that the person is truly a heretic, then we are dealing with one who is only suspect of heresy and not one who is manifestly heretical. In the case of one who is manifestly heretical, he would lose his office completely and immediately upon his manifest heresy. The Church would only then need to declare that he is a manifest heretic to enforce his already lost office.CK,
"Bellarmine is clear and explicit on this general point: that the separation from the body of the Church, as well as loss of office and all jurisdiction, are accomplished by the very act of heresy, ex natura hæresis, and not by the judgment of the Church, or as a penalty for an ecclesiastical delict. This sententia is de fide regarding firstly the separation from the Church, in virtue of 1) the unanimity of the Fathers, 2) the teaching of the universal magisterium set forth in the Roman Catechism, and, 3) the teaching of Pius XII in Mystici Corporis; and secondly, it is de fide regarding the loss of office and jurisdiction, because of 1) the unanimity of the Fathers on this point which Bellarmine amply demonstrates in his refutation of Opinion No. 4, and 2) the canonical doctrine of the Church proposed by the papal ordinary magisterium in Canon 188. 4°; which, therefore, qualifies it as a doctrine pertaining to the universal and ordinary magisterium. Thus, it is not a mere question of law, but of definitive magisterial doctrine that heretics and schismatics are separated from the Church by their own actions suapte natura, apart from any ecclesiastical law or judgment; and that the consequent loss of office and jurisdiction is not the result of any penal sanction or any judgment pronounced by the Church, but is the direct effect of the act of defection from the Church, sine alia vi externa; which therefore, not by any human law, takes place ex natura hæresis or ex natura schismatis."
Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope (p. 480). Kindle Edition.
Team Bergoglio's pre-conclave lobbying was disqualifying, so his "election" cannot be canonical.
…Fr. Chazal's "sede-impoundism" closely follows 1917 Canon Law. He believes that Bergoglio was lawfully elected…
False. Pope is not bound by Canon Law, cannot be coerced by it, and certainly cannot be deposed by the operation of law ... but only by Divine Law. He can also dispense with any law unless it's contrary to Divine Law or natural law (an extension of Divine Law), even if it is against "right reason" or against "the common good".The Natural Law can never be contrary to "right reason" or "the common good." And a Pope can never act "lawfully" in a way that is contrary to Natural Law. Canon Law assumes Natural Law principles without repeating them in the Code.
Team Bergoglio's pre-conclave lobbying was disqualifying, so his "election" cannot be canonical.
Canon 7 (1983 CIC 361)
Under the name Apostolic See or Holy See in this Code come not just the Roman Pontiff, but
also, unless by the nature of the thing or from the context of the words something else appears,
the Congregations, Tribunals, and Offices through which the same Roman Pontiff is wont to
expedite the affairs of the universal Church.
Canon 221 (1983 CIC 332)
If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns, for the validity of this resignation, acceptance by a
Cardinal or another is not necessary.
The Canons that I quoted don't really say anything significantly different from Fr. Kramer. But until the "declaration" and the "condemnation" happens, the heretical Pope, is not "deposed" from his "office" per se. Again, that final "deposition" is an academic point.
Practically, for the faithful, there is very little difference if the heretic Pope has been officially "deposed" or not. As an ipso facto excommunicate (because of his manifest heresy), the Pope is provisionally "removed" from office (which then becomes provisionally "vacant" upon his "removal"), pending his final "deposition" after his pertinacity is determined by excommunication steps 2 and 3.
This war between the sedevacantists and the sedeprivationists is easily resolved by understanding the distinctions made in Canon 2314. These two groups are saying something practically identical, with the caveat that a Pope is a special case because he can potentially avoid the excommunication steps 2 and 3, if he has the political support in the Vatican. In other words, in the case of the heretic Pope, we cannot guarantee that his full excommunication (level 3) will take place. But ipso facto excommunication (level 1) gets us 90+% there anyway.
One must ask oneself, CK, why Pope Urban VIII or some Pope after him did not excommunicate John of St Thomas for heresy, if this is de fide as Fr Kramer says. Obviously, Fr Kramer has an erroneous understanding of this issue. It sounds Catholic but it is not.
Once again, this matter has never been settled by the Church. It is a hotly contested topic among theologians. Let us not appoint ourselves Pope to settle the issue.
Here is John of St Thomas:
Response to the objections
It is easy to answer the objections of Bellarmine and Suárez against this view.
Objection 1. “A heretic is not a member, so cannot be head of the Church”
Bellarmine objected that the Apostle [St Paul] says that we must avoid the heretic after two admonitions, that is to say, after he clearly appears pertinacious, before any excommunication and sentence of a judge, as St. Jerome says in his commentary, for heretics separate themselves by the heresy itself (per se) from the Body of Christ.
And here is his reasoning:Answer:
- A non-Christian cannot be Pope, for he who is not a member [of the Church] cannot be the head; now, a heretic is not a Christian, as commonly say the Fathers; thus, a manifest heretic cannot be Pope.
- One cannot object that a character remains in him , because if he remained Pope because of a character, since it is indelible, it could never be deposed. This is why the Fathers commonly teach that a heretic, because of heresy and regardless of excommunication, is deprived of any jurisdiction and power, as say St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose and St. Jerome.
I answer [to Bellarmine] that the heretic should be avoided after two admonitions legally made and with the Church’s authority, and not according to private judgment; indeed, a great confusion in the Church would follow , if it was allowed that the admonition is made by a private man, and that the manifestation of this heresy having been made without being declared by the Church and proclaimed to all, in order that they avoid the Pontiff, that all should be required to avoid; for a heresy of the Pope cannot be public for all the faithful on the report of a few, and this report, not being legal, does not require that all believe it and avoid the Pontiff; and therefore as the Church proclaims him legally elected by legally designating him for all, it is necessary that she deposes him by declaring and proclaiming him as a heretic to be avoided.
Therefore, we see that this has been practiced by the Church, when in the case of the deposition of the Pope, the cause itself was first addressed by the General Council before the Pope was declared “No Pope”, as we said above. Therefore it is not because the Pope is a heretic, even publicly, that he will ipso facto cease to be Pope, before the declaration of the Church, and before she proclaims him as “to be avoided” by the faithful.
And when St. Jerome says that a heretic separates itself from the body of Christ, he does not exclude a judgment of the Church, especially in such a serious matter as the deposition of the Pope, but it indicates only the quality of the crime, which excludes per se from the Church, without any further sentence, at least from the moment he is declared [heretic] by the Church; indeed, even if the crime of heresy separates itself (ex se) of the Church, however, in relation to us that separation is not understood as have been made (not intelligitur facto) without this statement.
It is the same thing from the reason added by Bellarmine. A non-Christian who is such in itself AND in relation to us (quoad se et quoad nos) cannot be Pope; however, if he is not in itself a Christian, because he has lost the faith, but if in relation to us he is not legally declared being infidel or heretic, as obvious as it may appear in a private judgment, he is still in relation to us (quoad nos) a member of the Church and therefore the head. Accordingly, a judgment of the Church is required through which he is declared (proponatur) as being a non-Christian and to be avoided, and then he ceases in relation to us to be the Pope, consequently, previously he did not cease to be himself (etiam in se) [Pope], because all what he did was valid in itself.1 (https://dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/#easy-footnote-bottom-1-2028)
Angelus, do you affirm or deny the following proposition:
The public sin of manifest formal heresy by its very nature separates the heretic from the Church.
Now the fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church.
Yes, I agree with that proposition. However, according to Canon 2314, the initial "separation," although having grave consequences, is provisional to some degree. There are three steps in the process. The impact of each of those steps is described in more detail in Canons 2257-2267.
1. ipso facto level of excommunication = the excommunicate is legally "removed" from office. He has no legal authority to posit any official act and his jurisdiction is suspended. The office becomes "vacant" in a legal sense (de jure).
2. tolerandus level of excommunication = the excommunicate loses, in addition to those things mentioned at step 1, the fruits (benefits) of his office, like salary, housing, etc.
3. vitandus level of excommunication = the excommunicate loses, in addition to those things mentioned in steps 1 and 2, the office itself (per se) and he is denied ecclesiastical burial and things like that.
The first step of excommunication is the most important from a practical standpoint. What matters most is the an ipso facto excommunicate cannot legally be considered to be an "acting Pope." He is suspended/impounded. The seat is, for all practical purposes, "vacant" at step 1. And, since the person is no longer legally the Pope, he can be judged and punished (steps 2 and 3), which is what Bellarmine says in his Fifth Opinion (https://novusordowatch.org/de-romano-pontifice-book2-chapter30/):
Does the proposition I presented when applied to a pope that becomes a public manifest formal heretic (hypothetically speaking that a pope could actually become a heretic) cause the man to go from an ontological pope to ontological non-pope?
Note: By "ontological pope", I mean a man upon whom Jesus Christ has conferred the papal munus.
While we both believe that a true Pope gets his true authority from Jesus Christ, we, as mere mortals, are not privy to the lawfully-elected Pope's relationship with Jesus at any give moment. So, I don't know the answer to your specific question.
What we have, from Church authority in its Canon Law, are rules and definitions to guide us in determining heresy and loss of authority from a legal perspective. And Canon Law says that the ipso facto heretic, while in that state, is practically equivalent to a non-Pope. But the Church is cautious to prove pertinacity before his final condemnation, again, because we are mere mortals.
And now we come to the difference between us two. I hold that by Divine Law an ontological pope will become an ontological non-pope by his public sin of manifest formal heresy.
10 A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: 11 Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.
On the part of selection, one is a heretic, because he selects; but if he is not obstinate and is ready to be corrected by the Church, then his selection arose not from malice but from ignorance. In that case he is not a heretic.
One should avoid this man on account of the danger: their talk will eat its way like gangrene (2 Tim 2:17). Furthermore, let no one take part in the sins, lest he appear to consent to them: if any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting (2 John 1:10). And also because of the punishment: depart, I pray you, from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest you be swept away with all their sins (Num 16:26).
Such a person should be warned, and if he does not desist, he should be avoided. And he says, after the first and second admonition, for that is the way the Church proceeds in excommunicating. The reason for this is that the number three suggests that everything has a beginning, a middle, and an end. Consequently, it is taken as expressing all things: this is the third time I am coming to you (2 Cor 13:1), and also because of the perfection of the number three.
Canon 2314 (1983 CIC 1364)
§ 1. All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic:
1.° Incur by that fact excommunication;
2.° Unless they respect warnings, they are deprived of benefice, dignity, pension, office,
or other duty that they have in the Church, they are declared infamous, and [if]
clerics, with the warning being repeated, [they are] are deposed;
3.° If they give their names to non-Catholic sects or publicly adhere [to them], they are
by that fact infamous, and with due regard for the prescription of Canon 188, n. 4,
clerics, the previous warnings having been useless, are degraded.
You can "hold" anything you want, I suppose. God gave you free will. But I would suggest that you follow Canon Law. It is the safer course.
The "divine law" in this matter is Titus 3:10-11:
For the theology see St. Thomas Aquinas's commentary on Titus (https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~Titus.C3.L2.n101):
For Law of the Church see Canon 2314 (and Canons 2257-2267):
All of the above agree on the process.
You can "hold" anything you want, I suppose. God gave you free will. But I would suggest that you follow Canon Law. It is the safer course.
The "divine law" in this matter is Titus 3:10-11:
For the theology see St. Thomas Aquinas's commentary on Titus (https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~Titus.C3.L2.n101):
For Law of the Church see Canon 2314 (and Canons 2257-2267):
All of the above agree on the process.
Then you don't actually agree with the following proposition:
The public sin of manifest formal heresy by its very nature separates the heretic from the Church.
The fourth opinion is of Cajetan [322]. There, he teaches, that a manifestly heretical Pope is not ipso facto deposed; but can and ought to be deposed by the Church. Now in my judgment, such an opinion cannot be defended. For in the first place, that a manifest heretic would be ipso facto deposed, is proven from authority and reason. The Authority is of St. Paul, who commands Titus [323], that after two censures, that is, after he appears manifestly pertinacious, an heretic is to be shunned: and he understands this before excommunication and sentence of a judge.
Now the fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church.
Do you think Bellarmine is contradicting himself?.
.Yes, it's a first-then scenario.
No, because a pope cannot be judged by the Church. So, St. Robert Bellarmine says a pope would cease to be pope, and then can and must be judged by the Church. The two events are not simultaneous, and he must cease being pope before he can be judged.
.
No, because a pope cannot be judged by the Church. So, St. Robert Bellarmine says a pope would cease to be pope, and then can and must be judged by the Church. The two events are not simultaneous, and he must cease being pope before he can be judged.
Just curious why you are so hesitant to use the terminology and procedures outlined in Canon Law. If you think Bellarmine teaches something different from the law of the Church, you are incorrect.
Here's Bellarmine himself (https://novusordowatch.org/de-romano-pontifice-book2-chapter30/):
And here:
Do you think Bellarmine is contradicting himself?
That the public sin of manifest heresy by its very nature separates the heretic from the Church does not depend upon St. Robert Bellarmine's teaching or Canon Law. It is a doctrine of the Catholic Church. You seem to be making this doctrine intrinsically connected with Canon Law. It is not so and cannot be so because the former is of Divine Law and the latter is of Ecclesiastical Law. The former is non-contingent and the latter is contingent. Even if there were no canonical delict with the effect of excommunication for public manifest formal heresy, the public manifest formal heretic would still be separated from the Church.
Canon 188 (1983 CIC 194) Cross-Refs.: 1917 CIC 156, 1444, 2168, 2314, 2379, 2388
Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation
recognized by the law itself if a cleric:
4.° Publicly defects from the Catholic faith;
Fr. Chazal affirms the above proposition and has acknowledged that Jorge Bergoglio is not ontologically pope because he is a public manifest formal heretic. Here is the syllogism:The sedevacantists not only want to claim Archbishop Lefebvre, now they want to claim Fr Chazal also.
The public sin of manifest formal heresy by its very nature separates the heretic from the Church.
But Jorge Bergoglio has committed the public sin of manifest formal heresy.
Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio is separated from the Church.
We see also here Bishop Williamson's attitude about sedevacantism, calling it "the conviction of many serious Catholics". Hardly characterizing it as some "danger to souls" that must be avoided at all costs, as Plenus Venter alleged the Resistance holds. Of course, we also have a CI member who posted some correspondence with Father Chazal, where Father Chazal also holds that Bergoglio is not a true pope.I invite you, Ladislaus, to read the excerpts from Fr Chazal's conclusion to his book that I have posted in response to CK above. Do I really need to also provide for you the comments of ABL, Bishop Williamson, the Dominicans of Avrille, the Franciscans of Morgon, the Benedictines of Brazil and other traditional SSPX and Resistance sources referring to the dangers of sedevacantism - danger to souls, obviously, and the danger of schism? I don't know why you pretend that this is not the case. Of course sedevacantism is the conviction of many serious Catholics. Do you not believe that "Conciliarism" is also the conviction of many serious Catholics? In fact, most serious Catholics in the world today hold to this "danger", in good faith, albeit that most who hold to this danger of Conciliarism are not serious Catholics.
I invite you, Ladislaus, to read the excerpts from Fr Chazal's conclusion to his book that I have posted in response to CK above. Do I really need to also provide for you the comments of ABL, Bishop Williamson, the Dominicans of Avrille, the Franciscans of Morgon, the Benedictines of Brazil and other traditional SSPX and Resistance sources referring to the dangers of sedevacantism - danger to souls, obviously, and the danger of schism? I don't know why you pretend that this is not the case. Of course sedevacantism is the conviction of many serious Catholics. Do you not believe that "Conciliarism" is also the conviction of many serious Catholics? In fact, most serious Catholics in the world today hold to this "danger", in good faith, albeit that most who hold to this danger of Conciliarism are not serious Catholics.
Thanks QV, but forgive me if I prefer ABL and Bishop Williamson for spiritual guides in this matter!
PV, the only thing that saves you from schism is the fact that Bergoglio is actually not the pope. If he were a true pope, you would be in schism. You display no obedience to him nor do you submit or subject yourself to him. Remember that the Eastern Schismatics and Protestants don’t subject themselves to him either, but they too believe he’s the pope.
Thanks QV, but forgive me if I prefer ABL and Bishop Williamson for spiritual guides in this matter!
That’s too bad, I prefer Saint Robert Bellarmine and Saint Alphonsus de Liguori as my guides in this matter.Sure, QV, we've been through all this before.
Incidentally, The Archbishop actually knew the principles involved with the “heretic pope question”. He knew that if JPII was, to his mind, a pertinacious heretic, he would have lost his “pontificate”. This is a fact. With Bergoglio on the scene, R&Rers, such as yourself, know that this Catholic doctrine is now provable, so now you needed to switch gears and deny the doctrine.
The public sin of manifest formal heresy by its very nature separates the heretic from the Church.You don't seem to understand what is meant by formal heresy. It requires pertinacity which requires admonitions from the authority as St Robert Bellarmine himself explains in his fifth opinion. Who is the superior of the Pope? Who would give these admonitions? You want to settle this question which the Church never has done, by stating "it is obvious, anyone can see that he is pertinacious". So says Pope Joe Bloggs, and there we have a sedevacantist dogma. Welcome to the new church of SV. I will stay Catholic, thank you.
But Jorge Bergoglio has committed the public sin of manifest formal heresy.
Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio is separated from the Church.
CK, I already explained and provided the quote from Titus that the Church bases its "doctrine" on. Your statement suggests that we don't already agree on that. We do agree on that, I think.
To restate more clearly, St. Paul's Epistle to Titus 3:10-11 is the Scriptural basis of the Church doctrine on how to deal with heretics. Aquinas's and Bellarmine's theological principles are based on the Church's interpretation of Titus. The Church's Canon Law summarizes the Church doctrine plus the opinions of the Doctors plus provides additional precision in heretical cases.
Canon Law is based on Church doctrine, where the doctrine is applicable. Regarding the matter of heresy, the Church doctrine is applicable. Canon Law contains precepts of divine law, natural law, and ecclesiastical law. Canon Law is not only, as you seem to suggest, a collection of ecclesiastical laws. I can give examples, but what I have said seems so elementary, I won't waste the time. Read this instead:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09056a.htm
And your last sentence is directed at a phantom as well. I completely agree with that statement. But Canon Law doesn't even require that the apparent heretic be a "formal" (i.e., pertinacious) heretic in order to be "separated from the Church" and "lose" his office, as you suggest. Canon 188.4 only requires that the heresy be "public" for the loss of office to occur:
The "pertinacity" is investigated and determined later in excommunication steps 2 and 3. But just by "publicly" professing "heresy" (defined in Canon 1325), the person is ipso facto excommunicated (Canon 2314.1). That means he is "separated from the Church," and he will remain "separated" unless he "respects warnings."
You seem to think my position is substantially different from yours. I don't think so. I am just trying to use the precise language used in Canon Law. But we end up practically in the same place: a public heretic is separated (excommunicated level 1) immediately, without need for any declaration by a competent authority. Because of that "ipso facto excommunication," he "loses" his office and, therefore, the office is legally "vacant" (Canon 188.4).
You don't seem to understand what is meant by formal heresy. It requires pertinacity which requires admonitions from the authority as St Robert Bellarmine himself explains in his fifth opinion. Who is the superior of the Pope? Who would give these admonitions? You want to settle this question which the Church never has done, by stating "it is obvious, anyone can see that he is pertinacious". So says Pope Joe Bloggs, and there we have a sedevacantist dogma. Welcome to the new church of SV. I will stay Catholic, thank you.Where does St Bellarmine explain this in his "fifth opinion"?
The sedevacantists not only want to claim Archbishop Lefebvre, now they want to claim Fr Chazal also.
It is incredible, it is utterly bizarre, that a priest can write a book condemning sedevacantism and be held up as a sedevacantist.
FR CHAZAL CONTRA CEKADAM: CONCLUSIONS:
From the above, we can conclude that sedevacantism proceeds from error and generates error:
1. A False Modern Notion of Authority
Authority is for truth... God tolerated defective instruments... One of the unforseen consequences of the dogma of Papal Infallibility... that idea (of absolute authority) is still trapping many people in the Novus Ordo, and is trapping sedevacantists... What is most worrying is the individual twist of sedevacantism: the idea that an INDIVIDUAL's perception of a fact, grave though it may be, leads to the loss of office of a perlate or a magistrate. There is a foul smell of modern democracy here.
2. An Opinion, Both False and Dangerous, Raised to the Level of Dogma
...We are not saying that St Robert Bellarmine's fifth opinion is both false and dangerous, but your interpretation of it. You make it mandatory, necessary, binding in conscience, which is something Bellarmine never did...
3. Instant Damnation of the Catholic World...
4. Confusion Between Infallibility and Impeccability in the Faith
The Monophysisists are to Christ what sedevacantists are to the Papacy...
5. Anarchical Refusal of the Juridical Order of the Church
Mgr Guerard des Laurier should have adhered to the theological distinction held by his Dominican predecessors; PER SE/QUOAD NOS. Things that have happened before God may not have yet happened before men, while something happens immediately when a Pope proffers a heresy. Should a phenomenon happen per se, suapte natura, ex natura, ipso facto, by itself, from the very fact, yet we remain human, social beings, carrying on in a visible society endowed with a public life and a juridical bond. That is the way we are: social beings, Quoad Nos. We stand against the opposite notion which is anarchy... We are Catholics, not Protestants... we wait patiently... until it can be resolved by an instrument established by Our Lord to prevent the fragmentation of the Church...
6. Invisible Apostolic Visibility
Again, unlike you (Fr Cekada) Mgr des Lauriers excludes the total loss of office. My only caveat, worth repeating, is that a purely material succession equates to nothing either in reality or in theological terms, just like a material sin is not a sin (Forma dat esse; materia potius non ens quam ens). In previous pages Bouix explains very well that Faith is not a condition for the power of jurisdiction to hold, and would believe even less in the fiction of the return of this power if Francis were to convert. But what Mgr Guerard understood is that the apostolic succession established by Christ cannot perish the way you say it did...
Like you (Fr Cekada) we retain the notion of what heresy causes "ex natura sua", "per se", and like Guerard, we recognise that not everything has disappeared, mysteriously, but that something sufficient remains of the visible apostolic unity of the Church, not just "materialiter", that's insufficient, but "quoad nos" a quantum remains for the Church to continue its mission.. In the meantime we urge all Catholics unite around, or at least save their skin by, the one principle ingrained in Divine Law: separation from heretics. That principle is both sufficient and necessary...
7. A Portico to Many Other Errors
Sedevacantism is at the origin of many bad fruits, and the presence of unhinged private judgement, what we warn most about sedevacantism, is clearly showing. In this unfortunate process, it also picks up previous errors, if not heresies...
On the issue of schism, I was only able to find eight presently ignominiously reigning popes...
And there are other bizarre branches led by strange bishops: offshoots of Bishop Sanborn...
Tell me if I'm being too harsh, but sedevacantism is a bit like Islam: once you join or submit to it, the perpetual internal fight only begins...
Our duty is to keep the faith, not to enter into new errors...
8. Francis Gets Away
He is not real, he is just a charlatan, guilty of charlatanism. He just stole the show in Rome. Give him a few spanks, take away his clown nose and that's it. In this case, there is no current man responsible for the damnation of millions of souls. On the day of judgment Francis can simply say he was not in charge, just a clown or at worst, a fraud. Burning in hell as Pope is a very different way to burn... our leaders just evaporate... because of the magic of the sin of heresy...
To say he is no pope, to say he is not there despite the obvious fact to the contrary...
Per se, it is much better to be a sedevacantist and separate from heretics than not to be one, and connive with them, even though, quoad aliquos sedevacantistas, there is a risk of schism...
Plenus Venter, I asked Fr. Chazal directly and unequivocally whether he holds Jorge Bergoglio as ontologically pope; he does not. Whether he is a defined as a Sedevacantist or not because of his answer is another question.
The sedevacantists not only want to claim Archbishop Lefebvre, now they want to claim Fr Chazal also.
It is incredible, it is utterly bizarre, that a priest can write a book condemning sedevacantism and be held up as a sedevacantist.
I saw your correspondence with Father Chazal, and he unequivocally agreed that Jorge is not the pope.
Thank you.
Angelus, we don't seem to agree on my fundamental point and that is this:
The public sin of manifest formal heresy is the efficient cause of changing a member of the Church into a non-member of the Church.
When the above point is applied to a pope (hypothetically assuming that a pope could become a heretic), this sin itself would make him change from a member to a non-member. Being a non-member, he cannot have the papal munus. You were not sure of this.
In your line of reasoning, however, you are not agreeing that the sin itself causes a loss of membership (and loss of the papal munus). Rather, to you non-membership really occurs when the Church makes the final judgment.
This is what I understand of the distinction between our two positions.
I am saying the canonical standard is actually lower for the initial "loss" ofJust to clarify that theologians can't even decide if canon law applies to a pope. The above certainly applies to any non-papal office. But we can't say that canon law penalties apply to the pope. He can dispense with canon law anytime he chooses. He's above all human laws (which canon law is a human law).papalany non-pope office, power, jurisdiction, and legitimacy, according to Canon Law.
Just to clarify that theologians can't even decide if canon law applies to a pope. The above certainly applies to any non-papal office. But we can't say that canon law penalties apply to the pope. He can dispense with canon law anytime he chooses. He's above all human laws (which canon law is a human law).
That's why the debates that +Bellarmine had with all the other educated theologians went on for so long. It's a complex situation.
You do not understand what I am saying. See the part I have bolded above. I agree 100% with that statement. You are incorrect that I am "not sure of this."
But you are throwing the word "formal" in there unnecessarily. I am saying the canonical standard is actually lower for the initial "loss" of papal office, power, jurisdiction, and legitimacy, according to Canon Law. The Pope doesn't need to be proven to be a "formal" (i.e., pertinacious) heretic in order to lose those things. The proof of pertinacity comes after the repeated "warnings" by a competent authority. But no warnings are necessary for the initial "loss" of office (Canon 188.4).
We, you and I, agree that we must act as if Bergoglio not the Pope. We must act as if he has "lost membership in the Church," even if the competent authority has not yet ruled on the finality if that statement. Why must we act this way? Because Canon Law tells us we must act this way. It is not a theological opinion that we can take or leave. We are bound to follow Canon Law.
P.S. What I am saying agrees with these general principles discussed by John Lane. The only thing, I don't agree with him on is his indicia of heresy and his application of it to certain Popes. On that point, I agree with Fr. Kramer.
http://www.the-pope.com/contra_objections.html
You don't seem to understand what is meant by formal heresy. It requires pertinacity which requires admonitions from the authority as St Robert Bellarmine himself explains in his fifth opinion.
Hmm. Let this percolate.:laugh1: I found this funny with the Oapist Coffee ad below it.
You are sadly ignorant of how law, of its nature, works according to Catholic theology. Your expression is in line with a theory of law called "legal positivism." The Catholic Church rejects "legal positivism," preferring instead the Thomistic "higher law," "natural law" basis of all law.
I understand that formal heresy (moral and canonical) requires pertinacity. I do not agree, however, that it requires admonitions. St. Robert Bellamarine did not teach this.
"It is manifestly evident that in the clearly stated context where he speaks of warnings, that Bellarmine is not stating or implying that there is any need for canonical admonitions for a pope to lose office. It was the exponents of Opinion No. 4 who maintained that canonical admonitions are necessary for a pope to be deposed for heresy. Canonical admonitions are proper only to a superior, and are administered by a superior as the initial phase of a penal process. Bellarmine qualifies the sense of the term as he means it to be understood with the words, 'that after two censures, that is, after he appears manifestly pertinacious', thereby making it clear that the warnings are not part of a juridical procedure, but only serve the purpose of fraternal correction in order to determine whether or not the pope in question 'ceases by himself to be pope' by his heresy, ipso facto, and not by the ministerial instrumentality of any judgment at the conclusion of an official procedure, whereby the Church authorities would render a judgment on the supreme judge and ruler, and as a consequence of which the heretic Pontiff would only then fall from the Pontificate upon such judgment passed on him by his subjects and inferiors. Ballerini, a follower of Bellarmine’s opinion, understood perfectly that Bellarmine was not speaking of canonical admonitions being necessary in this context when he commented (in the above cited passage), 'In such a crisis for the faith, cannot even inferiors warn their superior by fraternal correction[?]'; and, 'For any person, even a private person, the words of Saint Paul to Titus hold' – and he demonstrates that he understood well that Bellarmine’s reason for the Pontiff’s subjects to and he demonstrates that he understood well that Bellarmine’s reason for the Pontiff’s subjects to administer the warnings would not be an official act of ecclesiastical authority, but 'a duty of charity and not of jurisdiction', for the purpose only of discerning whether or not there is pertinacity, in order to determine whether or not the individual in question is properly a heretic who has fallen from the Pontificate: 'having been once or twice corrected, does not repent, but remains obstinate in a belief contrary to a manifest or defined dogma; by this his public pertinacity which for no reason can be excused, since pertinacity properly pertains to heresy, he declares himself to be a heretic'."
Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope (p. 500-501). Kindle Edition.
Canon 188: Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric: ... 4.° Publicly defects from the Catholic faith;
Canon 188: Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus: ... 4º A fide catholica publice defecerit;
???
Pope Saint Boniface I, 418-422: “No one has ever boldly raised his hands against the Apostolic Eminence, from whose judgment it is not permissible to dissent; no one has rebelled against this, who did not wish judgment to be passed upon him.”
Pope Saint Nicholas I (the great), 858-867: “Neither by the emperor, nor by all the clergy, nor by kings, nor by the people will the judge be judged…. The first See will not be judged by anyone….”
Pope Saint Leo IX, 1053: “By passing a preceding judgment on the great See, concerning which it is not permitted any man to pass judgment, you have received anathema from all the Fathers of all the venerable Councils…. As the hinge while remaining immovable opens and closes the door, so Peter and his successors have free judgment over all the Church, since no one should remove their status because ‘the highest See is judged by no one.’ ”
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 1302, approved by the Fifth Lateran Council: “Therefore, if the earthly power goes astray, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a lesser spiritual power goes astray, it will be judged by its superior; and truly, if the highest power goes astray, it will not be able to be judged by man, but by God alone. And so the Apostle testifies, ‘The spiritual man judges all things, but he himself is judged by no one.’ [1 Cor 2:15]”
Pope Gregory XI, 1377, condemned the error: “An ecclesiastic, even the Roman Pontiff, can legitimately be corrected, and even accused, by subjects and lay persons.”
Canon 1404: The First See is judged by no one.
[Current Code of Canon Law, 1983]
Canon 1556: The Primatial See can be judged by no one.
[Previous Code of Canon Law, 1917]
But you are throwing the word "formal" in there unnecessarily. I am saying the canonical standard is actually lower for the initial "loss" of papal office, power, jurisdiction, and legitimacy, according to Canon Law. The Pope doesn't need to be proven to be a "formal" (i.e., pertinacious) heretic in order to lose those things. The proof of pertinacity comes after the repeated "warnings" by a competent authority. But no warnings are necessary for the initial "loss" of office (Canon 188.4).
I do not agree with you that pertinacity is not required for Canon 188.4 to take effect. Public heresy is a type of public defection from the Faith. Canon 1325 defines who is a heretic and that definition includes pertinacity. Therefore, pertinacity is required for Canon 188.4 to take effect.
Canon 7 (1983 CIC 361)
Under the name Apostolic See or Holy See in this Code come not just the Roman Pontiff, but
also, unless by the nature of the thing or from the context of the words something else appears,
the Congregations, Tribunals, and Offices through which the same Roman Pontiff is wont to
expedite the affairs of the universal Church.
I understand that formal heresy (moral and canonical) requires pertinacity. I do not agree, however, that it requires admonitions. St. Robert Bellamarine did not teach this.In Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae (1897), Tanquerey explains that in the extraordinary case of a heretical Pope or multiple doubtful Popes, begins by noting that during the First Vatican Council, Bishop Gasser took the occasion to discussed the hypothesis of a Pope falling into heresy, which was considered unlikely, but not impossible. He then explains that if such were to happen, “he would either be ipso facto deprived of the Pontificate, or the body of bishops could (indirectly) depose him, as in the case of doubtful pope: for in these extraordinary cases, the authority devolves to the episcopal body.”[42]
"It is manifestly evident that in the clearly stated context where he speaks of warnings, that Bellarmine is not stating or implying that there is any need for canonical admonitions for a pope to lose office. It was the exponents of Opinion No. 4 who maintained that canonical admonitions are necessary for a pope to be deposed for heresy. Canonical admonitions are proper only to a superior, and are administered by a superior as the initial phase of a penal process. Bellarmine qualifies the sense of the term as he means it to be understood with the words, 'that after two censures, that is, after he appears manifestly pertinacious', thereby making it clear that the warnings are not part of a juridical procedure, but only serve the purpose of fraternal correction in order to determine whether or not the pope in question 'ceases by himself to be pope' by his heresy, ipso facto, and not by the ministerial instrumentality of any judgment at the conclusion of an official procedure, whereby the Church authorities would render a judgment on the supreme judge and ruler, and as a consequence of which the heretic Pontiff would only then fall from the Pontificate upon such judgment passed on him by his subjects and inferiors. Ballerini, a follower of Bellarmine’s opinion, understood perfectly that Bellarmine was not speaking of canonical admonitions being necessary in this context when he commented (in the above cited passage), 'In such a crisis for the faith, cannot even inferiors warn their superior by fraternal correction[?]'; and, 'For any person, even a private person, the words of Saint Paul to Titus hold' – and he demonstrates that he understood well that Bellarmine’s reason for the Pontiff’s subjects to and he demonstrates that he understood well that Bellarmine’s reason for the Pontiff’s subjects to administer the warnings would not be an official act of ecclesiastical authority, but 'a duty of charity and not of jurisdiction', for the purpose only of discerning whether or not there is pertinacity, in order to determine whether or not the individual in question is properly a heretic who has fallen from the Pontificate: 'having been once or twice corrected, does not repent, but remains obstinate in a belief contrary to a manifest or defined dogma; by this his public pertinacity which for no reason can be excused, since pertinacity properly pertains to heresy, he declares himself to be a heretic'."
Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope (p. 500-501). Kindle Edition.
If a person lawfully-elected to the Chair (See) of Peter publicly professes heresy, he automatically loses his office, which means "the See" is legally-vacant.So the argument goes. But nothing is official until the Church acts. Therefore, without any Church declaration, it would be wrong to say that pope x has lost his office. We can only say that pope x is heretical. Only the Church can determine if pope x "publicly" "professed" "heresy", according to the legal definition of all 3 of these words.
So the argument goes. But nothing is official until the Church acts. Therefore, without any Church declaration, it would be wrong to say that pope x has lost his office. We can only say that pope x is heretical. Only the Church can determine if pope x "publicly" "professed" "heresy", according to the legal definition of all 3 of these words.
Canon 188 (1983 CIC 194) Cross-Refs.: 1917 CIC 156, 1444,2168, 2314, 2379, 2388
Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation
recognized by the law itself if a cleric:
4.° Publicly defects from the Catholic faith;
Where does St Bellarmine explain this in his "fifth opinion"?My mistake, 2V, he explains it in his refutation of the fourth opinion. This gives us the proper understanding of what his fifth opinion means:
And are you now saying SV's are not Catholic with the last bolded?
What part of "becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration" do you not understand? I really do want to help you understand this.Someone who remains in office has not tacitly resigned. If he joins the Mormons, that would be tacit resignation.
Canon 188 (1983 CIC 194) Cross-Refs.: 1917 CIC 156, 1444,2168, 2314, 2379, 2388As Plenus Veneter said, tacit resignation needs to be defined per canon law, not according to your private understanding.
Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation
recognized by the law itself if a cleric:
4.° Publicly defects from the Catholic faith;
And they would all say they have not publicly defected from the Faith.
Your popesYou miss the point completely. The V2 popes may not be true popes; we must wait for the Church to declare it officially.
1) You miss the point completely.
2) You can privately decide all you want, but your decision is meaningless. Their heresies remain, and still ruin souls, despite your rejection of their office. Being a sede solves nothing, without a Church decision.
Neither Sedeism nor R&R solves anything. The crisis remains. That’s the point. So it’s a waste of time to run around arguing with other Trads about the popes’ status.
It simply acknowledges what we're witnessing. Badly trained men pushing out bad doctrine, bad mass, bad blessings, etc.All Trads acknowledge the V2 popes are heretical. And they have from the beginning. There have been Sede-Trads and non-Sede-Trads since the 70s. What has changed? Nothing.
Someone who remains in office has not tacitly resigned. If he joins the Mormons, that would be tacit resignation.
Material heresy by the pope continuing in his office is not what canonists understand by public defection from the faith.
Canon 188: Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric: ... 4.° Publicly defects from the Catholic faith;
Canon 188: Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus: ... 4º A fide catholica publice defecerit;
We agree that no formal, official determination of "pertinacity" is necessary for automatic excommunication for ipso facto heresy, right? That is the type of "pertinacity" I was referring to.
CK, I agree completely with the bolded sentence above about Bellarmine's position. And Bellarmine's position agrees with 1917 Canon Law.
A "legally-forced" (ipso jure) "loss of office," does not "require admonitions." Canon 188 says that it requires nothing more than "the fact itself" (ipso facto) of a "defection from the Catholic Faith." Here is Canon 188 in English and Latin:
Why am I certain that no official "admonition" is required for the ipso jure "loss of office?" Because Canon 188 says that this "loss of office" happens "upon the fact and without any declaration." The "declaration" mentioned there is the same "declaration" mentioned in Canon 2314, where the law states that the "declaration" comes after the heretic does not "respect warnings." Canon 188 is saying that a "declaration" is not needed for the ipso jure and ipso facto "loss of office." I agree with Canon 188. Fr. Kramer seems to agree with that. Bellamine seems to agrees with that.
The concept of ipso facto LOGICALLY EXCLUDES the need for any additional steps like official "admonitions." Any official "admonitions" would be additional steps to allow the competent authority to legally take the final action of ultimately condemning/anathematizing the heretic. Those additional steps (the official "admonitions") are not needed for the ipso jure "loss of office" which is caused by an ipso facto "defection," according to Canon 188.
My entire point is that Canon Law, which binds every Catholic, already includes the correct understanding of how the automatic "loss of office" occurs. It is not a mere "theological opinion." It is the law. The Church has spoken.
Since any heretic incurs automatic (ipso facto) excommunication (Canon 2314 §1.1), he is immediately "separated from the Church" to such a degree that if he held an office before, he automatically loses the office by professing heresy. Canonically, he is given the opportunity to come back into the Church, but if an only if he "respects warnings." If he does not respect two official warnings, then he is "declared" after the first official warning and "condemned" after the second official warning. But he is "separated from the Church" and loses any ecclesiastical office upon ipso facto profession of heresy, before any warnings happen.
Are we in agreement on this?
In Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae (1897), Tanquerey explains that in the extraordinary case of a heretical Pope or multiple doubtful Popes, begins by noting that during the First Vatican Council, Bishop Gasser took the occasion to discussed the hypothesis of a Pope falling into heresy, which was considered unlikely, but not impossible. He then explains that if such were to happen, “he would either be ipso facto deprived of the Pontificate, or the body of bishops could (indirectly) depose him, as in the case of doubtful pope: for in these extraordinary cases, the authority devolves to the episcopal body.”[42]
(http://file:///C:/Users/Rob/Desktop/Bellarmine on the loss of office for a Manifest heretic/Bellarmine article - Remnant 1-21-21.docx#_ftn42)In Tractatus De Romano Pontifice (1891), Palmieri explains that it is God, not man, who deprives a heretical Pope of his jurisdiction, but says it doesn’t happen until the Church declares him a heretic. He then references Suarez as the authority for his position:"If a Pope is obstinate in his heresy—obstinate, I say: for, if he heeds the Church’s admonitions, nothing further is necessary—such a Pope is deposed, not by man, but by God himself, who takes away the jurisdiction that He had given him; the Church, for her part, only declares the man to be a heretic, and then (ideoque) God deprives him of his jurisdiction." (cf. Suarez, Defensio Fidei Catholicae, lib. iv c. 7 n. 5).In the quotation Palmieri referenced, Suarez says, “although in the case of heresy [the Pope] could be deposed, he is in truth not deposed by man but by God himself, after the declaration of a legitimate Council has preceded.” (Defensio Fidei Catholicae, lib. v c 7 n. 5).In Sacrae Theologiae Summa (1955), Joachim Salaverri teaches the same as Palamerri, and he too references Suarez:"Theologians concede that a general Council can licitly declare a Pope heretical, if this case [of a Pope falling into heresy] is possible, but it cannot depose him authoritatively since he is superior to the Council … see Suarez, De fide d.10 s.6."[43] (http://file:///C:/Users/Rob/Desktop/Bellarmine on the loss of office for a Manifest heretic/Bellarmine article - Remnant 1-21-21.docx#_ftn43)The fact that Salaverri means a sitting Pope can be licitly declared a heretic, is evident from the following quotation from Suarez that he referenced to support his position:I say thirdly, if a Pope were a heretic and incorrigible, when first, through the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church, a declaratory sentence of the crime is pronounced against him, he ceases to be Pope. This is the common opinion among the doctors. (Suarez, De Fide, disp x, sect. 6.)In Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (1887), Fr. Smith observes that there are two main opinions concerning how a heretical Pope is deprived of his jurisdiction, and then explains that, “Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the church, i.e., by an ecuмenical council or the College of Cardinals.”[44] (http://file:///C:/Users/Rob/Desktop/Bellarmine on the loss of office for a Manifest heretic/Bellarmine article - Remnant 1-21-21.docx#_ftn44)In Summa Apologetica de Ecclesia Catholica (1890), Vincent Groot also teaches that a Pope who falls into heresy is not deprived of his jurisdiction until his heresy is juridically established and declared:"In the case of a Pope who is a public, legal, notorious, and contumacious heretic… he would have to be deposed by a council of bishops. But the deposition would not be an act of jurisdiction, since there is no power greater than the Pope, but a declaratory sentence, by which the fact of heresy is juridically established; and once established, the Pope is believed to be deprived of his dignity by divine law."[45] (http://file:///C:/Users/Rob/Desktop/Bellarmine on the loss of office for a Manifest heretic/Bellarmine article - Remnant 1-21-21.docx#_ftn45)
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/the-true-meaning-of-bellarmines-ipso.html
As Plenus Veneter said, tacit resignation needs to be defined per canon law, not according to your private understanding.
All the V2 popes have claimed they are still catholic, therefore there is no tacit resignation. And they would all say they have not publicly defected from the Faith. So it would be up to Church officials to make a decision.
Do we agree that "separation from the Church" for a pope (if it were hypothetically possible for a pope to become a heretic) means that he becomes ontologically a non-pope?CK, your earlier definition of the phrase "ontological Pope" was as follows:
Note: By "ontological pope", I mean a man upon whom Jesus Christ has conferred the papal munus.
CK, your earlier definition of the phrase "ontological Pope" was as follows:
So, to answer your question, I would say that I agree:
IF the Pope's intention was really to deny a Church dogma, then he would lose the papal munus because he would be the enemy of Christ.
BUT IF, INSTEAD, the Pope's intention was not to deny a Church dogma (e.g., an oversight or mistake), then he would not lose the papal munus because it was only an apparent heresy.
If the former, the Pope would ignore warnings and fail to clarify his statements, like Bergoglio has done. If the latter, he would immediately try to set things right, like John XXII did.
But, Canon Law says that in either case, upon his public profession of apparent heresy, he legally loses all authority to govern the Church until he recants, clarifies, etc.
I am glad you agree that he would not be an ontological pope. However, I have a problem with the bolded statement. We are back to the issue again of formal (pertinacious) vs. material heresy (not pertinacious). I do not agree with you that material heresy would cause Canon 188.4 to take effect.
Ok. Then please explain the process, as you see it, for establishing what you are calling "pertinacious" heresy. How does your conception of that process align with an ipso facto and ipso jure "loss of office" described in Canon 188.
And please try to use the terminology used in Canon Law itself. You are using the word "formal." But in Canon 2217, the word "formal" [ferendae sententiae] is technically defined in opposition to "automatic" [latae sententiae]. We must use precise language so we are not talking past one another.
Can 2217
§1. Poena dicitur:
1º Determinata, si in ipsa lege vel praecepto taxative statuta sit; indeterminata, si prudenti arbitrio iudicis vel Superioris relicta sit sive praeceptivis sive facultativis verbis;
2º Latae sententiae, si poena determinata ita sit addita legi vel praecepto ut incurratur ipso facto commissi delicti; ferendae sententiae, si a iudice vel Superiore infligi debeat;
3º A iure, si poena determinata in ipsa lege statuatur, sive latae sententiae sit sive ferendae; ab homine, si feratur per modum praecepti peculiaris vel per sententiam iudicialem condemnatoriam, etsi in iure statuta; quare poena ferendae sententiae, legi addita, ante sententiam condemnatoriam est a iure tantum, postea a iure simul et ab homine, sed consideratur tanquam ab homine.
§2. Poena intelligitur semper ferendae sententiae, nisi expresse dicatur eam esse latae sententiae vel ipso facto seu ipso iure contrahi, vel nisi alia similia verba adhibeantur.
Canon 2217 (1983 CIC 1314–15)
§ 1. A penalty is called:
1.° Determinate if it is taxatively established in the law itself or a precept; indeterminate
if it is left to the prudent judgment of the judge or of the Superior, whether [it is
expressed in] preceptive or facultative words;
2.° Automatic if a determinate penalty is added to the law or precept such that it is
incurred upon the fact of the delict being committed; formal if it must be inflicted by
a judge or Superior;
3.° Of law if a determinate penalty is established in the law itself, whether automatic or
formal; of man if it is imposed by means of a special precept or by condemnatory
judicial sentence, even though it is established in the law; wherefore a formal
penalty added to the law before a condemnatory sentence is only of law, afterward
[it is] both of law and of man, but it is considered only of man.
§ 2. A penalty is always considered formal, unless it is expressly said to be automatically
contracted or upon the fact or by the law, or unless other similar words are used.
I am not that interested in the process of "establishing" pertinacity. That is for suspect heretics. I am interested in PUBLIC MANFEST FORMAL heresy. I use the term "formal" in its sense used in moral theology. Heresy becomes "formal" when there exists "pertinacity" on the part of the will. Heresy as a canonical delict also requires "pertinacity" as per Canon 1325. The definition of heresy in moral theology is the basis for the definition of heresy in Canon Law. For Canon 188.4 to take effect, the heresy must be PUBLIC (expressed to a large number of people), MANIFEST (evident), and FORMAL (pertinacious).Let's look at the actual words as they exist in Canon Law:
Let's look at the actual words as they exist in Canon Law:
"Public" : This word is definitely included in Canon 188.4 when it says the cleric "Publicly defects...." Canon 2197 provides the canonical definition of the phrase: "A delict is Public, if it is already known or is in such circuмstances that it can be and must be prudently judged that it will easily become known;"
"Manifest" : The expression "ipso facto" is just another way of saying "manifest". That is definitely required by Canon 188. As you say, "manifest" means "evident." More importantly, as I mentioned, it means "apparent" to one perceiving it. In Moral Theology, a merely "material heresy" meets this standard.
"Formal" : This word (or any equivalent) is not found in Canon 188. More importantly, the canonical definition of "formal" (referred to as ferendae sententiae in Canon 2217) is contrary to the sense of the phrase "ipso facto without any declaration" that we find in Canon 188 itself. The censure found in Canon 188 is of the type ipso facto and ipso jure, which is also referred to as latae sententiae, i.e., automatic.
Canon 2242 §2 states that "...in order to incur an automatic [latae sententiae] censure, it suffices that there be a transgression of the law or precept to which is attached an automatic penalty, unless a legitimate cause excused the accused from this.
So, if and only if there is factual evidence of a "legitimate cause" for the Pope's apparent heresy could he avoid the automatic "loss of office." A "legitimate cause" might be, for example, that he had a gun held to his head or that he was under the influence of mind-altering drugs at the time. The facts can speak for themselves. If there are no such facts, there would be no reason to assign a "legitimate cause" for his actions.
Therefore, it should be clear that determining some kind of "formal pertinacity" is not required by Canon 188. All that is required is the expression of "material heresy" in a way that is "public" and, further, that there are no obvious reason to suspect that he did it innocently. He does not need to be interviewed or brought to trial to make such a determination.
The "formal" in the sense I mean it is the "pertinacity" in the definition of a heretic given in Canon 1325.2:
"After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one is] a heretic; if he completely turns away from the Christian faith, [such a one is] an apostate; if finally he refuses to be under the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church subject to him, he is a schismatic."
It is not the "formal" that you mentioned in regards to Canon 2217.
Public heresy is a type of defection from the Catholic Faith. If one defects from the Catholic Faith by this means, then he "pertinaciously denies or doubts something.....". Without this "pertinacity", he is not a heretic. You yourself hinted at this as well when you wrote, ".....that there are no obvious reason(s) to suspect that he did it innocently."
CK, please explain the process, as you see it, for sufficiently determining "pertinacity" to satisfy Canon 1325.2. But remember, the process that you come up with cannot be anything other than an ipso facto determination. In other words, the determination of "pertinacity," to be consistent with the sense of Canon 188, must be evident or manifest by the facts surrounding the heretical expression itself. No recourse to interviews or admonitions of the heretic are required. Are we agreed on that much?
Pertinacity is not necessarily manifest in the first instance of the public utterance of a heresy.
In Fr. Paul Kramer’s quote below, he references the work of Fr. Francesco Bordoni titled “SACRUM TRIBUNAL IUDUcuм IN CAUSIS SANCTÆ FIDEI CONTRA HÆRETICOS ET HÆRESI SUSPECTOS“.
“Pertinacity consists in this, that one firmly consents in something or doubts, what he knows to be against faith, and determined by the Church. Thus, pertinacity is the voluntary consent of something, consciously or dubitatively against what one actually knows to be against faith. Thus it is deduced that heresy does not involve perseverance and permanence in the false assertion, since with the error being known the judgment can be made in an instant, such as one who knowingly wills something without a duration of time, therefore the will and the intellect can produce their acts in an instant, be they true and good, or false and evil – therefore also heresy.”
(Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.)
If a priest, for example, were to give a sermon in which he for the first time publicly asserted that there are four persons of the Blessed Trinity, and that one of them was the Blessed Virgin Mary, his pertinacity would immediately be manifest. However, in most cases pertinacity is manifest over more than one instance. It all depends on the indicia (signs, evidence) of heresy as Fr. Paul Kramer teaches. It should be evident, however, to any Catholic with eyes to see and ears to hear that Jorge Bergoglio is a public manifest formal heretic, and is therefore cut off from membership of the Church.
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/2023-06-10_093329.png)
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/2023-06-10_100142.png)
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/2023-06-10_100227.png)
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/2023-06-10_100300.png)
CK, the following example that you provided confirms to me that you agree with my interpretation of Canon 188. You said:
"If a priest, for example, were to give a sermon in which he for the first time publicly asserted that there are four persons of the Blessed Trinity, and that one of them was the Blessed Virgin Mary, his pertinacity would immediately be manifest."
Yes, this is exactly what I have been saying. The standard of heresy in Canon 188 is a single ipso facto heretical utterance. Nothing more. Therefore, the type of "pertinacity" required to trigger the "loss of office" is nothing more than what can be perceived at "the instant" (your Bordoni quote) that the heresy is pronounced. I have said this multiple times. Go back and read what I said.
So, we are in agreement, correct?
Correct, it will not be the same for all people. I never said that. What I said is that the standard is not “pertinacity” as that word is normally used (or as it is used in Canon Law).
The standard is that the heresy must be “evident” or “manifest” from nothing more than “the fact itself.”
Some statements will not be “immediately” manifest/evident because those statements might be ambiguous or lack clarity.
So, it is the “ambiguity” or “lack of clarity” that prevents certain statements from being “manifestly heretical.” This ambiguity is the reason that many of the statements of the Popes prior to Bergoglio do not meet the standard of Canon 188.
Yes, some of Bergoglio’s statements meet the standard of “manifest heresy” because certain statements of his are not ambiguous. They are like your example of “4 persons in the Trinity.” Certain propositions contain ambiguity and certain ones do not. Those heretical-sounding statements that are not ambiguous meet the standard set by Canon 188.
Fr. Gerald McDevitt makes Canon 1325.2's definition of "heretic", which includes pertinacity, required for Canon 188.4 in respect of public heresy. "Pertinacity" must needs be present for Canon 188.4 to take effect in the case of public heresy.
Latin
Etymology
From pertinax (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pertinax#Latin) + -ter (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ter#Latin).
Adverb
pertināciter (comparative (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#comparative) pertinācius (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pertinacius#Latin), superlative (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#superlative) pertinācissimē (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pertinacissime#Latin))Related terms
- obstinately (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/obstinately)
- steadfastly (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/steadfastly)
pertinax
Latin
Etymology
From pertineō (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pertineo#Latin) + -āx (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ax#Latin)
PronunciationAdjective
- (Classical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Latin)) IPA (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:International_Phonetic_Alphabet)(key (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Latin_pronunciation)): /ˈper.ti.naːks/, [ˈpɛrt̪ɪnäːks̠]
- (modern Italianate Ecclesiastical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_phonology_and_orthography#Ecclesiastical_pronunciation)) IPA (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:International_Phonetic_Alphabet)(key (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Latin_pronunciation)): /ˈper.ti.naks/, [ˈpɛrt̪inäks]
pertināx (genitive pertinācis (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pertinacis#Latin), comparative pertinācior (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pertinacior#Latin), superlative pertinācissimus (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pertinacissimus#Latin), adverb pertināciter (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pertinaciter#Latin)); third-declension (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Latin_third_declension) one-termination adjective
- persevering (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/persevering), obstinate (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/obstinate)
- pertinacious (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pertinacious)
- tenacious (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tenacious)
- steadfast (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/steadfast)
And it is clearly not required by Canon 188 that the heretic holds the position "tenaciously."Ridiculous. You need to have some common sense.
Ridiculous. You need to have some common sense.
Sorry, your one-liners are not clear.It's ridiculous that you're playing Supreme Canon Lawyer, and interpreting everything to condemn others.
It's ridiculous that you're playing Supreme Canon Lawyer, and interpreting everything to condemn others.
CK, why have you resorted to using the arguments of a doctoral dissertation to make your case? We have Canon Law itself and St. Robert Bellarmine as the authorities.
Regardless, of what Fr. McDevitt's opinion might have been, we have the meaning of words to take into account and logic to guide us. The word in Canon 1325 that you are fixated on is "pertinaciter." You can read about that word on this page:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pertinaciter
Note that the word is derived from the root word pertinax, which you can read about on this page:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pertinax#Latin
You will note that all of these definitions relate to holding a position "tenaciously" and "persevering" in that position over a period of time.
But we have already established that the Canon 188 "loss of office" occurs "immediately" (see Bordoni quote), not over time. And it is clearly not required by Canon 188 that the heretic holds the position "tenaciously." It is only required that he expresses the heresy "manifestly," "evidently," "unambiguously." And it is by that fact itself (ipso facto) that the office is lost.
Logically, the concepts "immediately" and "ipso facto" are not compatible with the concepts expressed in the words "tenaciously" and "perseveringly." Therefore, "pertinacity," in the defined meaning of that word, is contrary to the sense of Canon 188.
I have provided sufficient evidence that "pertinacity" is required for Canon 188.4 to take effect when the public defection from the Catholic Faith takes the form of heresy.I agree. Without pertinacity/obstinacy, you can’t have formal heresy, only material.
Since you readily admit your ignorance of Canon LawI admit I’m not a canon lawyer but I do have some experience with law. Your reading of legal texts is not comprehensive enough, but too focused.
I admit I’m not a canon lawyer but I do have some experience with law. Your reading of legal texts is not comprehensive enough, but too focused.
This is a "gotcha" question and you know it. It's an either-or, all or nothing, black or white view of the papal crisis. Go read +Bellarmine's debates with John of St Thomas, Cajetan, etc. There's a lot of layers to all of this. It's very complex.
You still want to make this all about "theological opinions" and debates from the 1500s. That's wrong.My point in mentioning the debates from the 1500s is to remind you that these theologians distinguished between the spiritual/temporal papal authority, and his Divine/Human offices. I've never read where you mention these. You argue either the pope occupies the seat, or not. He either has authority or not. This is too simplistic. The pope has a human/govt office and a Divine/spiritual office. Different excommunications/canons pertain to either the spiritual or govt. Or both. But not always both at the same time.
The Code of Canon Law incorporated the essential elements of Bellarmine's and Cajetan's arguments.
If you analyze Canon Law, you will find that both perspectives have their place at different stages of the heresy/excommunication process.Have you ever asked a canon lawyer about your views? Honest question.
My point in mentioning the debates from the 1500s is to remind you that these theologians distinguished between the spiritual/temporal papal authority, and his Divine/Human offices. I've never read where you mention these. You argue either the pope occupies the seat, or not. He either has authority or not. This is too simplistic. The pope has a human/govt office and a Divine/spiritual office. Different excommunications/canons pertain to either the spiritual or govt. Or both. But not always both at the same time.
Nonsense. Canon Law's primary purpose is to facilitate the administration of the Church's govt. We've never had a heretic pope before the 1900s. Let's not pretend that +Bellarmine's views were exhaustive on such a question...he didn't even consider a heretic pope a realistic possibility.
Have you ever asked a canon lawyer about your views? Honest question.
Instead of worrying about credentials, why don't you try to deal with the law and the logical argument presented, using your God-given reason?An untrained layman can only understand canon law up to a point. "Reason" is not sufficient to fully grasp all the nuances of the legal system.
An untrained layman can only understand canon law up to a point. "Reason" is not sufficient to fully grasp all the nuances of the legal system.
I can read 10 books on how to rebuild a car motor, but that will only get me so far. If i've never worked in a mechanics shop to ACTUALLY rebuild a motor, then I won't be able to do it. "On the job training" and certain "industry knowledge" is essential.
:facepalm: I can't believe you are actually arguing that a person will no legal training can fully understand canon law.