Author Topic: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter (Read 60945 times)

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #45 on:** January 17, 2023, 08:53:40 AM »

Quote from: Catholic Knight on January 17, 2023, 08:25:14 AM

Pertinacity can be determined by one who does not have jurisdiction over the heretic in question.

False:

”St. Robert Bellarmine affirms that the loss of office (consequence of the crime) is based upon the Church’s establishment of pertinacity (the crime) by virtue of ecclesiastical warnings. He says: “For in the first place, it is proven by authority and reason that a manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed [consequence under Divine law]. The authority is that of Blessed Paul, who in his Epistle to Titus, chapter 3, orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is after he clearly appears pertinacious [crime under Church law], and he understands (by this) before any excommunication and judicial sentence; as Jerome writes regarding this passage, where he states that other sinners are excluded from the Church through a sentence of excommunication, but heretics depart from and are cut off from the Body of Christ through themselves” [consequence under Divine law].

Note that Bellarmine affirms with Suarez and others under Divine law that “a manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed” as we have already seen. But he then says this conclusion is based on the “authority” of Titus 3:10, which requires warnings from ecclesiastical authority before the heresy is established and the heretic avoided (specifically, the authority that Titus, as a Bishop, had in his diocese). Then, “after two warnings” (when pertinacity is proved and the crime is established), Bellarmine refers again to consequence under Divine law (the heretic is “cut off from the Body”). Bellarmine’s language is clear, although sedevacantists attempt to deny what he actually said.

Suarez teaches the same regarding the crime (determined by the Church) and the consequence (dictated by Divine law): “I affirm: if he were a heretic and incorrigible, the Pope would cease to be Pope just when a sentence was passed against him for his crime, by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church. This is the common opinion among the doctors.” Suarez also says: “Therefore on deposing a heretical Pope, the Church would not act as superior to him, but juridically, and by the consent of Christ, she would declare him a heretic [crime] and therefore unworthy of Pontifical honors; he would be then ipso facto and immediately be deposed by Christ [consequence], and once deposed he would become inferior and would be able to be punished” [human punishment].”1

http://trueorfalsepope.com/articles/salza/John%20Salza%20Responds%20to%20Another%20Sedevacantist.pdf

Catholic Knight · « **Reply #46 on:** January 17, 2023, 09:13:46 AM »

The determination of pertinacity that I am writing about is in regards to the availability of sufficient evidence followed by a private judgment. I am not writing about a a juridical judgment. A private judgement can be made in regards to heresy just like in regards to any other sin.

Catechism 101:
Question: What is rash judgment?
Answer: Rash judgment is believing a person guilty of sin without a sufficient cause.

What can be extracted from the question and answer above is that if there is a sufficient cause, then the judgment is not rash.

If there is sufficient evidence that one is guilty of the sin of heresy, then a judgment of imputing the guilt can be reached with moral certitude.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #47 on:** January 17, 2023, 09:27:41 AM »

Quote from: Catholic Knight on January 17, 2023, 09:13:46 AM

The determination of pertinacity that I am writing about is in regards to the availability of sufficient evidence followed by a private judgment. I am not writing about a a juridical judgment. A private judgement can be made in regards to heresy just like in regards to any other sin.

Catechism 101:
Question: What is rash judgment?
Answer: Rash judgment is believing a person guilty of sin without a sufficient cause.

What can be extracted from the question and answer above is that if there is a sufficient cause, then the judgment is not rash.

If there is sufficient evidence that one is guilty of the sin of heresy, then a judgment of imputing the guilt can be reached with moral certitude.

In other words, you are taking a canonical term, redefining it to facilitate your desired conclusion, and consequently (and admittedly) misapplying it for that purpose.

You should not have said that out loud.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #48 on:** January 17, 2023, 09:47:30 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on January 17, 2023, 08:53:40 AM

False:

”St. Robert Bellarmine affirms that the loss of office (consequence of the crime) is based upon the Church’s establishment of pertinacity (the crime) by virtue of ecclesiastical warnings. He says: “For in the first place, it is proven by authority and reason that a manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed [consequence under Divine law]. The authority is that of Blessed Paul, who in his Epistle to Titus, chapter 3, orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is after he clearly appears pertinacious [crime under Church law], and he understands (by this) before any excommunication and judicial sentence; as Jerome writes regarding this passage, where he states that other sinners are excluded from the Church through a sentence of excommunication, but heretics depart from and are cut off from the Body of Christ through themselves” [consequence under Divine law].

Note that Bellarmine affirms with Suarez and others under Divine law that “a manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed” as we have already seen. But he then says this conclusion is based on the “authority” of Titus 3:10, which requires warnings from ecclesiastical authority before the heresy is established and the heretic avoided (specifically, the authority that Titus, as a Bishop, had in his diocese). Then, “after two warnings” (when pertinacity is proved and the crime is established), Bellarmine refers again to consequence under Divine law (the heretic is “cut off from the Body”). Bellarmine’s language is clear, although sedevacantists attempt to deny what he actually said.

Suarez teaches the same regarding the crime (determined by the Church) and the consequence (dictated by Divine law): “I affirm: if he were a heretic and incorrigible, the Pope would cease to be Pope just when a sentence was passed against him for his crime, by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church. This is the common opinion among the doctors.” Suarez also says: “Therefore on deposing a heretical Pope, the Church would not act as superior to him, but juridically, and by the consent of Christ, she would declare him a heretic [crime] and therefore unworthy of Pontifical honors; he would be then ipso facto and immediately be deposed by Christ [consequence], and once deposed he would become inferior and would be able to be punished” [human punishment].”1

http://trueorfalsepope.com/articles/salza/John%20Salza%20Responds%20to%20Another%20Sedevacantist.pdf

Of course there must be some formal process of removal, or at least a declaration, before there's a new election to the office. But that doesn't answer the question of whether the office holder, who has been "ipso facto deposed" as a result of any manifest heresy, has any authority to act after that "ipso facto" deposition, or whether a subordinate must acknowledge any acts of the heretic.

From the Nestorius case we know that from that point - the manifest heresy and "ipso facto deposition" - the acts of the "ipso facto" deposed are void and lack authority.

Suppose Nestorius repented before removal (after a warning or two) and ultimately was not removed. His prior actions before he repented of his manifest heresy, e.g. the excommunications of others, while in an office he never was deposed from would have been nonetheless void if issued when he was a notorious and manifest heretic, would they not? As happened, a pope like Celestine would have simply said those actions were void when made and never had legal effect.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #49 on:** January 17, 2023, 10:09:05 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on January 17, 2023, 09:47:30 AM

Of course there must be some formal process of removal, or at least a declaration, before there's a new election to the office. But that doesn't answer the question of whether the office holder, who has been "ipso facto deposed" as a result of any manifest heresy, has any authority to act after that "ipso facto" deposition, or whether a subordinate must acknowledge any acts of the heretic.

From the Nestorius case we know that from that point - the manifest heresy and "ipso facto deposition" - the acts of the "ipso facto" deposed are void and lack authority.

Suppose Nestorius repented before removal (after a warning or two) and ultimately was not removed. His prior actions before he repented of his manifest heresy, e.g. the excommunications of others, while in an office he never was deposed from would have been nonetheless void if issued when he was a notorious and manifest heretic, would they not? As happened, a pope like Celestine would have simply said those actions were void when made and never had legal effect.

You’ll like this article:

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/the-true-meaning-of-bellarmines-ipso.html?m=1

Basically, a heretic’s juridical acts remain valid unless a declaratory or condemnatory sentence has been issued (which finds its way into the Code in Can. 2264.).

The Church does not place the burden of determination when or whether a prelate or pope has lost jurisdiction upon the faithful, and therefore, in order that doubts not arise to disturb souls, has determined that if he possesses the office, he possesses the jurisdiction which comes with it, until/unless the Church says otherwise.

The fact is that ipso facto loss of office as commonly understood is almost a myth, given the established canonical processes in place. The only real exception I can think of would be a pope openly joining another sect (but this would be formal apostasy, not formal heresy).

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter (Read 60945 times)

SeanJohnson

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

Catholic Knight

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

SeanJohnson

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

DecemRationis

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

SeanJohnson

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