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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 39 40 [41] 42 43 ... 101

Author Topic: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter  (Read 59605 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
« Reply #200 on: January 24, 2023, 04:47:28 PM »
Quote from: SeanJohnson on January 24, 2023, 01:59:55 PM
But that Billuart and Bellarmine agree has already been shown in previous pages.

If they agree, it would be with Bellarmine's actual position (vs. the S&S distortion thereof).  But I would have to look at what Billuart actually said, because the citation by S&S sounds like it's talking about the internal sin of heresy (which deprives one of supernatural faith and charity) rather than with membership in the Church.
Logged

Offline Plenus Venter

Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
« Reply #201 on: January 24, 2023, 08:23:20 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on January 24, 2023, 04:47:28 PM
If they agree, it would be with Bellarmine's actual position (vs. the S&S distortion thereof).  But I would have to look at what Billuart actually said, because the citation by S&S sounds like it's talking about the internal sin of heresy (which deprives one of supernatural faith and charity) rather than with membership in the Church.
What is important, and obvious to all but the wilfully blind, is that we are dealing here with theological opinion.

Anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty will appreciate that there is a very weighty body of theological opinion of celebrated theologians and jurists spanning many centuries that holds that an heretical pope is not truly such until his heresy is demonstrated to be formal and that even then he maintains his office until such time as the Church removes him from office in some fashion or other, and that he cannot be simply judged by the individual as being no longer pope. Not every theologian holds this view, obviously, there is perhaps no 'common opinion'. The Church has never settled this dispute.
Do I then have the right to pontificate if the Church has not done so?

For those who appreciate St Robert Bellarmine's opinions, recall some of his teachings:

  • "We cannot depose catholic bishops who have possessed their sees for so many centuries peacefully, unless they are legitimately judged and condemned; for in every controversy, the condition of the one possessing it is better..."
  • "...we are certain with an infallible certitude that these, whom we see, are our true Bishops and Pastors. For this, neither faith, nor the character of order, nor even legitimate election is required, but only that they be held for such by the Church..."
  • "...Our Lord and the Apostles only lay down that false prophets are not to be listened to by the people, and not that they depose them. And it is certain that the practice of the Church has always been that heretical bishops be deposed by bishop's councils, or by the Sovereign Pontiff..." Add to this the common sense of Cajetan: "... a heretical Pope is not deprived (of the Papacy) by divine or human law... Other bishops if they become heretics are not deprived ipso facto by divine or human law; therefore, neither is the Pope. The conclusion is obvious, because the Pope is not in a worse situation than other bishops..."

"One cannot tolerate that a personal thesis be presented as confirmed and Church-defined dogmas in books, nor that the opposite thesis be accused of heresy. Thus the people of God is troubled, dissentions among theologians are created or augmented, and the bond of charity is broken." - Pope Benedict XIV, Sollicita n25


As Fr Chazal says in Contra Cekadam: "The practical behaviour of Catholics does not depend in any way on an opinion. What you say as a private person is not a dogma... and before Vatican II no dogma on this intricate, controversial and until then academic question had ever been formulated. On the contrary, with the exception of the time of Gratian, the constant unanimity was that there is no unanimity on this question."

Thus, Pere Jean (OFM Cap, Morgon) wrote in 2016: “It is understandable that some Traditional Catholics... be deeply troubled by the scandals of Pope Francis, who seems to have surpassed his predecessors'. The sedevacantist solution may appear to them as the simplest, most logical, and best. In fact, the fundamental problem remains the same since the '70s, and the prudent attitude of Abp Lefebvre, in considering the risk of excessive and rash judgement, with the attendant danger of schism, should not be abandoned.

In 2001, the “Small Catechism on Sedevacantism” published by Le Sel de la Terre concluded: “This is a position that has not been proven at the speculative level, and it is imprudent to hold it at a practical level, an imprudence that can bear very serious consequences.” (No. 36, p. 117) This conclusion holds as much for pope Francis as for pope John-Paul II who had kissed the Quran.

In this lies the whole drama of the sedevacantist movement. Individuals dogmatising an opinion, setting themselves up against their superiors (eg Sanborn against Lefebvre), dividing Tradition, isolating souls from the sacraments etc... and undoubtedly leading some souls down the path of schism, separating them forever from the Holy See.

Logged

Offline Plenus Venter

Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
« Reply #202 on: January 24, 2023, 08:28:09 PM »
Q. Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate?

A. There are two opinions: one holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church, ie, by an ecuмenical council or the College of Cardinals - Rev S B Smith DD, Elements of Ecclesiasticla Law, Benzinger Bros, 1881, 3rd ed, p210

Elements of ecclesiastical law : Smith, S. B. (Sebastian Bach), 1845-1895 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Page 240 in this online edition
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
« Reply #203 on: January 24, 2023, 10:36:31 PM »
Quote from: Plenus Venter on January 24, 2023, 08:28:09 PM
Q. Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate?

A. There are two opinions: one holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church, ie, by an ecuмenical council or the College of Cardinals - Rev S B Smith DD, Elements of Ecclesiasticla Law, Benzinger Bros, 1881, 3rd ed, p210

Elements of ecclesiastical law : Smith, S. B. (Sebastian Bach), 1845-1895 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Page 240 in this online edition

Incorrect on two counts.  1) There are more than two opinions, and 2) St. Robert Bellarmine makes it clear that no declaration is required.  Nor does this explain what ipso jure means.  Which law?  Divine Law or Church law?  In addition, sedeprivationism distinguishes, that such a Pope is not deprived by the Divine Law itself of material possession of the Pontificate, but is deprive by Divine Law of being able to exercise the authority of the office (apart from the material aspects, such as making appointments).  So this citation is a hot mess.  St. Robert's citation of the Pope St. Celestine decree regarding Nestorius is fatal to this position and to that of Salza and Siscoe.

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter.  This has nothing to do with the chief error of R&R to which many of you adhere pertinaciously.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
« Reply #204 on: January 24, 2023, 10:42:05 PM »
Quote from: Plenus Venter on January 24, 2023, 08:23:20 PM
What is important, and obvious to all but the wilfully blind, is that we are dealing here with theological opinion.
...

In this lies the whole drama of the sedevacantist movement. Individuals dogmatising an opinion, setting themselves up against their superiors (eg Sanborn against Lefebvre), dividing Tradition, isolating souls from the sacraments etc... and undoubtedly leading some souls down the path of schism, separating them forever from the Holy See.

None of your long-winded post has anything to do with the passage of mine that you quoted.  Most of it is a distortion and taking stuff out of context and misapplying it.

No, the problem isn't with sedevacantists.  It's with certain R&R Old Catholic heretics who promote the notion that the legitimate Papal authority can corrupt the Magisterium and the Public worship of the Church.  If you hold this, you too are a heretic, and part of the problem, not of the solution, despite your preferences for the smells and bells of the Tridentine Mass.

PS, nor was +Lefebvre Father Sanborn's superior.  +Lefebvre had no jurisdiction or authority over anyone.

What an idiot, accusing SVs of schism, when Canon Lawyers clearly state that it's not schismatic to refuse submission to a Pope based on well-founded doubts about his legitimacy.  You'll notice that the implied corollary is that it is schismatic to refuse submission WITHOUT doubts about the Pope's legitimacy ... as R&R does.  R&R is what's schismatic, and you have the temerity to accuse SVs of it.  Your assertion that SVs are separating themselves from the Holy See is begging the question, assuming that Bergoglio and his predecessors are the Holy See.  But you claim that it IS the Holy See and you separate yourselves from that See.  It's ludicrous that you claim to be united with the Holy See and in submission to it because you pay lip service ("yes, he's the pope") and put up a picture of Bergoglio in the vestibule.

Really, both the stupidity and the bad will involved in this version of the R&R position are almost beyond belief.

And +Lefebvre did not adhere to your errors, despite your assertions, and it's provable from his own words.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 39 40 [41] 42 43 ... 101
« previous next »