CathInfo.com

Sean,

In looking over the thread, in my recent engagement I was responding to post #90. Again, Van Noort does not support Sicscoe's argument.

DR

I'm not sure what this has to do with LaRosa's argument.

His position is that since Francis is (allegedly) a public manifest heretic, he is outside the Church, and cannot therefore be its pope (i.e., a reformulation of the classical sedevacantist maxim, "He who is not part of the body cannot be its head").

The problem -as I've been showing since p.1- is that Mr. LaRosa has no idea what a public manifest heretic is.  He thinks its just someone who says something heretical in front of a bunch of people (i.e., He's imputing colloquial definitions to canonical and theological terms to arrive at false conclusions).

Suarez: “in no case, even that of heresy, is the Pontiff deprived of his dignity and of his power immediately by God himself, before the judgment and sentence of men. This is the common opinion today”.

“Hence, if anyone shall dare — which God forbid! — to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.”

(Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 1854) [Emphases mine]

“The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy.”

(Second Council of Constantinople, 553) [Emphasis

As to the "LaRosa argument," look at the quote from Pius IX (from post #40)  regarding the dogma of the Immaculate Conception:


Look at the quote from Pope Vigilius (post #60):


If I'm standing next to my bishop and he says, "the Virgin Mary was not immaculately conceived, she was conceived in sin," I could consider him outside the Church since he separated himself from our communion by his external actions, and I could tell him to pound sand as a heretic who has separated himself from the Church, as could every Catholic who was standing there and heard it.

If my bishop took action against me and tried to excommunicate me, what do you think the Church would do if I testified before a tribunal that I rejected the bishop because of his heresy, and not only that, but my fellow Catholics who were there and heard it testified as to the same? Or, perhaps it would be better to say, what would Pius IX do?

The "public, manifest" part does not depend on a Church declaration of the publication or manifestation, and neither does the "heresy" part depend upon a Church declaration after the fact of an external expression or rejection of a dogma of the Church.

Now, in a close case, prudence would dictate against rashness, but that's a different question entirely, one not related to the principles that would apply in a clear case. But arguing from a "case not clear" doesn't change the principles involved, which would be applicable to a clear case.