"The controversy between myself and Salza began when I wrote, 'With or without the law, the heretic by the very nature of the sin of heresy ceases to be a Catholic and is incapable of holding office. Bellarmine explains this in De Romano Pontifice.'"
(Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope. Kindle Edition)
"With or without the law", paraphrasing what I wrote in a previous post(s). Positive ecclesiastical laws are not required for one to cease being a Catholic because it is of the very nature of the "sin" of heresy that separates one from the Church. The "crime" of heresy belongs to positive ecclesiastical law. Therefore, we don't need to bring up at all the "crime" of heresy and the corresponding canonical process in order to judge that one has fallen into heresy and thereby separated himself from the Church.
Let us listen again to Pope Vigilius:
“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 mine]
And Pope Pius IX:
“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....."
(Ineffabilis Deus, 1854) [Emphases mine]
And Pope Pius XII:
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
(Mystici Corporis, 23) [Emphases mine]
Eh, except that Martin V came well after Vigilius.
As for Mystici Corporis, Fr. Kramer's error has been addressed 4-5 times above.
And of course, the quote from Pius IX has nothing to do with popes suspected of heresy losing jurisdiction.
Topic: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter (Read 58185 times)