Quote from: Ladislaus
No, it's not.

Does Msgr. Van Noort Contradict Our Position?

      Next, Fr. Kramer makes the bold assertion that our interpretation of Mystici Corporis is not shared by any reputable theologian in the world, and quotes Msgr. Van Noort as his supporting evidence:

Fr. Kramer: “The Salza/Siscoe interpretation of Mystici Corporis is not shared by any academically qualified theologian in the world. Mons. Van Noort wrote:

‘b. Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of three factors — baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy — pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church. The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. 'For not every sin[admissum], however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy'. (Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, p. 241 - 242.)”

      Contrary to what Fr. Kramer was led to believe by reading Sedevacantist websites, what Van Noort wrote reflects our interpretation of Mystici Corporis Christi perfectly. The context of the quotation from Van Noort concerns what is necessary for a person to be a member of the Church (which is a point that is debated by theologians). Notice, Van Noort explicitly states that the reason public heretics are not members of the Church, is because “they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith,” (i.e., they sever the juridical bond of “profession of the same faith”).  That is precisely what we argue at length in Chapter Three of our book when treating of who can properly be considered a member of the Church!

      And the fact that Van Noort translated admissum as sin (which is likely what Fr. Kramer was referring to) in no way implies that he disagrees with our interpretation of the passage. As we have noted, we have no objection to this translation, as long as it is understood that the internal sin of heresy alone only separates a person from the Body of the Church dispositively, but not formally (or quoad se, but not quoad nos). And we can be absolutely certain that Van Noort agrees with us concerning this point, since he himself taught the exact same doctrine – and he did so the very next page!

      Here is what Msgr. Van Noort wrote one page after the quotation Fr. Kramer cited as “proof” that no theologian agrees with our interpretation of Mystici Corporis Christi:

Van Noort: “Internal heresy, since it destroys that interior unity of faith from which unity of profession is born, separates from the bodyof the Church dispositively, but not yet formally.” (Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, p. 242.)

      Van Noort’s interpretation of Mystici Corporis Christi, as well as his theology concerning how the internal sin of heresy severs a person from the Body of the Church (i.e., dispositively) reflects our position perfectly! In fact, Van Noort’s three-volume set of dogmatic manuals was one of the primary theological sources we consulted when writing our chapters on ecclesiology in True or False Pope?

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/formal-reply-to-fr-framer-part-ii.html?m=1

Nonsense.  This entire section is an absurd and dishonest strawman.  No sedevacantist believes that the "sin of heresy" causes the loss of papal office (10:28 - 20:40 in the link below):

I could not tell you why Van Noort doesn't say what he doesn't say.

Could you please rearticulate precisely what your argument is, and how it opposes the position of whomever you are directing it to?

As SS say, and contrary to whatever Fr. Kramer says, Van Noort is on the side of SS:

"Van Noort: “Internal heresy, since it destroys that interior unity of faith from which unity of profession is born, separates from the body of the Church dispositively, but not yet formally.” (Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, p. 242.)

Van Noort’s interpretation of Mystici Corporis Christi, as well as his theology concerning how the internal sin of heresy severs a person from the Body of the Church (i.e., dispositively) reflects our position perfectly! In fact, Van Noort’s three-volume set of dogmatic manuals was one of the primary theological sources we consulted when writing our chapters on ecclesiology in True or False Pope?"

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”.

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.