Author Topic: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter (Read 59495 times)

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #245 on:** January 25, 2023, 07:22:43 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on January 25, 2023, 07:15:05 PM

Yes, these have been posted here by you and by man others (myself included) many times here on CI. You'll notice that the reason that R&R refuse subjection to the Roman Pontiff is not listed among the exceptions, namely, because the Pope's Magisterium has become corrupt. That's precisely the claim made by the Protestants, Orthodox, and Old Catholics.

RR do not refuse subjection to the Pope.

I think you meant sedes.

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #246 on:** January 25, 2023, 07:23:45 PM »

Quote from: Catholic Knight on January 25, 2023, 01:03:38 PM

Is ordinary jurisdiction inextricably bound to an office?

It's a good question, but one that I think is unresolved in the case of the Pope.

We have already heard the opinion of many of the theologians on this thread, but I think it is worthwhile hearing again what St Robert Bellarmine says in relation to this:

1. "...if the pastor is a bishop, they (the faithful) cannot depose him and put another in his place. For 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."

This, "they are not to be listened to", might suggest that St Robert's opinion is that the bishop has lost jurisdiction even before he loses office. He says elsewhere (I just can't find the passage at the moment) that the moment they begin preaching heresy they can bind and loose no one...

Does he hold the same in relation to the Pope?

It is difficult sometimes (for amateurs like me at least) to reconcile his various opinions expressed in different works.

2. "...the Roman Pontiff cannot be deprived of his right to summon Councils and preside over them... unless he were first convicted by the legitimate judgement of a Council and is not Supreme Pontiff... For the supreme prince, as long as he is not declared or judged to have legitimately been deprived of his rule, is always the supreme judge..."

3. Writing specifically on the obedience of bishops to the Pope at a Council: "...inferiors ought not be free from the obedience to superiors, unless first he were legitimately deposed or declared not to be a superior..."

Does that mean the bishops will blindly obey the Pope? Not at all, St Robert continues "...for they swear they will be obedient to the Supreme Pontiff, which is understood as long as he is Pope, and provided he commands these things which, according to God and the sacred canons he can command; but they do not swear that they are not going to say what they think in the Council, or that they are not going to depose him if they were to clearly prove that he is a heretic.".

Here again we have the example of true obedience. The bishops will only obey the Pope provided that... There is no schism here!

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #247 on:** January 25, 2023, 07:32:16 PM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on January 25, 2023, 07:06:22 PM

I have posted this several times in the past:

Canonists have told us that sedevacantists are not schismatic if they recognize the papacy, do not intend to reject a true pope and act with good reason.

F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicuм, 7:398, 1943)

Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)

De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter'] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)

Good post QVD, we newbies haven't seen all the old posts :)

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #248 on:** January 25, 2023, 07:39:32 PM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on January 25, 2023, 07:06:22 PM

I have posted this several times in the past:

Canonists have told us that sedevacantists are not schismatic if they recognize the papacy, do not intend to reject a true pope and act with good reason.

F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicuм, 7:398, 1943)

Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)

De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter'] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)

Hmm.

Interesting quote, QVD.

I'll dig into this.

Meg · « **Reply #249 on:** January 26, 2023, 02:59:58 AM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on January 25, 2023, 07:06:22 PM

I have posted this several times in the past:

Canonists have told us that sedevacantists are not schismatic if they recognize the papacy, do not intend to reject a true pope and act with good reason.

F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicuм, 7:398, 1943)

Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)

De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter'] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)

I'll add one to the list.

Cardinal Catejan wrote:

"If somebody for a reasonable motive holds as suspect the person of the Pope, and refuse his presence, even his jurisdiction, he does not commit any delict of schism, nor any other delict as long as he is ready to accept the Pope if he were not suspect. It is obvious that we the right to avoid what is causing damage and to prevent dangers."

Notice the condition that Cardinal Catejan attaches to the idea of holding the pope suspect and refusing his jurisdiction. I have to wonder if the three quotes provided by QVD might also have a similar condition.

Fr. Chazal points that in the above quote, Catejan does not say that one has to refuse jurisdiction of the suspect Pontiff, but that someone could, for good reason.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter (Read 59495 times)

SeanJohnson

Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter

Plenus Venter

Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter

Plenus Venter

Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter

SeanJohnson

Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter

Meg

Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter