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

Author Topic: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter  (Read 59933 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Quo vadis Domine

  • Supporter
Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
« Reply #190 on: January 24, 2023, 09:30:32 AM »

On the Deposition of the Pope (Part 2 of 2) - Dominicans of Avrille, France (dominicansavrille.us)

St. Alphonsus Liguori

St. Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1787), Doctor of the Church, devoted several writings in defense of Papal power against the conciliarist heresy (which gave to the councils a higher authority over the Pope).  Collected in one volume by a Redemptorist religious on the eve of Vatican Council I, (Du Pape et du concile; Tournai, Casterman, 1869) these writings have helped to prepare the definition of the dogma of Papal infallibility.  St. Alphonsus does not really treat the issue of a heretical Pope, and he excludes it so that it does not disturb his subject.  But, without entering into the details, he said repeatedly that the heretical Pope loses his authority only when his heresy has been confirmed by a council.  He clearly shares the view of Cajetan and John of St. Thomas.

In an essay on the authority of the Pope, added by St. Alphonsus at the end of the edition of his Moral Theology in 1748,2 the Holy Doctor vigorously defends the superiority of the Pope over the council, but beforehand he declares:
  • It should first be noted that the superiority of the Pope over the council does not extend to the dubious Pope in the time of a schism when there is a serious doubt about the legitimacy of his election; because then everyone must submit to the council, as defined by the Council of Constance.  Then indeed the General Council draws its supreme power directly from Christ, as in times of vacancy of the Apostolic See, as it was well said by St. Antoninus (Summa, p. 3 did. 23, c. 2 § 6).
  • The same must be said of a pope who would be manifestly and exteriorly heretical (and not only secretly and mentally).  However, others argue more accurately that, in this case, the Pope cannot be deprived of his authority by the council as if it were above him, but that he is deposed immediately by Jesus Christ, when the condition of this deposition [= the declaration of the council] is carried out as required.3
After presenting the views of Azorius (viz. that the council is above a manifestly heretical pope), St. Alphonsus nuances it and therefore ultimately follows the position of Cajetan and John of St. Thomas, considered as “more accurate”.  St. Alphonsus did the same in his apologetical treatise Truth of Faith (1767):

“When in time of schism we are in doubt about the true Pope, the council may be convened by the cardinals and the bishops; and then each of the elected Popes is obliged to follow the decision of the council because, at that time, the Apostolic See is considered vacant.  It would be the same if the Pope would fall notoriously and perseveringly, persistently in some heresy.  However, there are those who affirm with more foundation that in the latter case, that the Pope would not be deprived of the papacy by the council as if it were superior to him, but he would be stripped directly by Jesus Christ because he would then become a subject completely disqualified and deprived of his office.” (Truth of Faith (1767), penultimate chapter “On the Superiority of the Roman pontiff over the councils”, art. I, Preliminary Notions, 2°)

St. Alphonsus defends again the same idea in 1768 in his refutation of the errors of Febronius:

If ever the Pope, as a private person, falls into heresy, then he would be immediately stripped of papal authority as he would be outside the Church and therefore he could not be the head of the Church.  So, in this case, the Church should not truly depose him, because no one has a superior power to the Pope, but to declare him deprived of the pontificate.  (We said: if the Pope fall into heresy as a private person, because the Pope as Pope, that is to say, teaching the whole Church ex cathedra cannot teach an error against Faith because Christ’s promise cannot fail). (Vindiciae pro suprema Pontificis potestate adversus justinum febronium, 1768, Chapter VIII, response to the 6th objection)


By chance did you happen to read this part?:
“but that he is deposed immediately by Jesus Christ”

Do you realize that he doesn’t support your case?

In 1961 Father David Sharrock C.SS.R., S.T.L wrote a dissertation for his doctorate in sacred theology published by The Catholic University of America entitled; "The Theological Defense of Papal Power by St. Alphonsus de Liguori". Saint Alphonsus follows Saint Robert Bellarmine on the heretical pope question on page 88.

David John Sharrock C.SS.R., S.T.L. "The Theological Defense of Papal Power By St. Alphonsus de Liguori" :

"If the pope ever, as a private person, were to fall into heresy, then at that moment, he would cease to be Pope, because he would then be outside the Church, and as such, would no longer be able to be the head of the Church. In this case, the Church would not depose him, because no one has authority above the Pope. It would simply declare that he had fallen from his pontificate. We have said: 'if the Pope as a private person were to fall into heresy', for the Pope, as Pope, ie. as teaching the whole Church ex cathedra, is not able to teach anything against the faith....."

But the Saint teaches that this heresy

.....must be a question of manifest and external heresy, not of an occult or mental heresy.

And again:

Then (when he is a manifest and external heretic) the Pope is not deprived of his power by the Council as by a superior, but..... He is immediately despoiled of it by Christ...."


Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
« Reply #191 on: January 24, 2023, 09:43:52 AM »

By chance did you happen to read this part?:
“but that he is deposed immediately by Jesus Christ”

Do you realize that he doesn’t support your case?

In 1961 Father David Sharrock C.SS.R., S.T.L wrote a dissertation for his doctorate in sacred theology published by The Catholic University of America entitled; "The Theological Defense of Papal Power by St. Alphonsus de Liguori". Saint Alphonsus follows Saint Robert Bellarmine on the heretical pope question on page 88.

David John Sharrock C.SS.R., S.T.L. "The Theological Defense of Papal Power By St. Alphonsus de Liguori" :

"If the pope ever, as a private person, were to fall into heresy, then at that moment, he would cease to be Pope, because he would then be outside the Church, and as such, would no longer be able to be the head of the Church. In this case, the Church would not depose him, because no one has authority above the Pope. It would simply declare that he had fallen from his pontificate. We have said: 'if the Pope as a private person were to fall into heresy', for the Pope, as Pope, ie. as teaching the whole Church ex cathedra, is not able to teach anything against the faith....."

But the Saint teaches that this heresy

.....must be a question of manifest and external heresy, not of an occult or mental heresy.

And again:

Then (when he is a manifest and external heretic) the Pope is not deprived of his power by the Council as by a superior, but..... He is immediately despoiled of it by Christ...."

In every instance, the quotes of St. Alphonsus supplied by PV suppose the Church’s declaration before the pope is deposed.

it appears your method is to extract piecemeal fragments from the quotes to make him say the opposite of what he is actually saying.

In doing so, you would create the “wavering Alphonsus,” same as sedes have, by the same artifice, created the “wavering Lefebvre.”

I believe earlier you stated such should be flogged?


Offline Quo vadis Domine

  • Supporter
Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
« Reply #192 on: January 24, 2023, 10:06:51 AM »
In every instance, the quotes of St. Alphonsus supplied by PV suppose the Church’s declaration before the pope is deposed.

it appears your method is to extract piecemeal fragments from the quotes to make him say the opposite of what he is actually saying.

In doing so, you would create the “wavering Alphonsus,” same as sedes have, by the same artifice, created the “wavering Lefebvre.”

I believe earlier you stated such should be flogged?
:laugh2:

Does this mean anything to you:

“but that he is deposed *immediately* by Jesus Christ”

You don’t believe Bruce Jenner is a woman, do you? I didn’t think so…..

Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
« Reply #193 on: January 24, 2023, 10:37:44 AM »
:laugh2:

Does this mean anything to you:

“but that he is deposed *immediately* by Jesus Christ”

You don’t believe Bruce Jenner is a woman, do you? I didn’t think so…..

No, it means nothing to me when you dishonestly snip off the words which immediately precede and follow (which is tantamount to conceding Alphonsus is against you):

“the Pope cannot be deprived of his authority by the council as if it were above him, but that he is deposed immediately by Jesus Christ, when the condition of this deposition [= the declaration of the council] is carried out as required.3

Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
« Reply #194 on: January 24, 2023, 11:45:14 AM »
Also odd that Avrille could say that Lagrange based his reasoning upon Billuart, if the Billuart quotation itself was false:

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that a heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. Indeed, what is uh impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head. “The reason is that – whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul – a moral head, as is the [Roman] Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.”

https://dominicansavrille.us/little-catechism-on-sedevacantism-part-i/

"Salza and Siscoe quote Billuart (who quotes Martin V’s Ad evitanda scandala) in a futile attempt to refute Bellarmine and the unanimous teaching of the Fathers....."

"Billuart’s error consists in his failure to make a critical distinction between those who lose their jurisdiction as a result of excommunication, and those who lose it ex natura hæresis, as a consequence of defecting from the faith and the Church, and thereby losing office and jurisdiction. Bellarmine points out that the decree only applies to excommunicates."

"The reason why Billuart’s failure to distinguish between those who lose their jurisdiction as a result of excommunication, and those who lose it ex natura hæresis, is of such great consequence, is that the ordinary and habitual jurisdiction of the officeholder is lost upon loss of office due to tacit resignation; but the excommunicates were provided with supplied jurisdiction in virtue of Ad evitanda scandala, and by the subsequent legislation that later replaced its provisions."

"Billuart erroneously deduced that 'heretics retain their jurisdiction', whereas all jurisdiction is lost by heretics, ex natura hæresis; but since heretics incur excommunication latæ sententiæ, jurisdiction was supplied by the decree Ad evitanda scandala. Billuart’s failure to distinguish between retaining jurisdiction and receiving supplied jurisdiction in virtue of the law itself led him into error on the question of loss of jurisdiction of a heretic pope."

"Billuart’s argues that since heretics retain jurisdiction 'for the benefit and tranquility of the faithful', therefore similarly, 'Christ, by a special dispensation, for the common good and tranquility of the Church, will continue to give jurisdiction even to a manifestly heretical pope, until he has been declared a manifest heretic by the Church.' Bellarmine’s words crush Billuart’s thesis: 'I say this avails to nothing. For those Fathers, when they say that heretics lose jurisdiction, do not allege any human laws which maybe did not exist then on this matter; rather, they argued from the nature of heresy.' Hence, there can be no exception by way of a 'special dispensation' from a loss of jurisdiction that results from the very nature of heresy. Heretics do not retain their jurisdiction: Jurisdiction is supplied to latæ sententiæ excommunicated heretics who not only lose all habitual jurisdiction, by their excommunication, but lose it ex natura hæresis. Billuart correctly notes that 'The pope… does not have his jurisdiction from the Church, but from Christ', but the pope would cease to be a member of the Church and lose all jurisdiction from Christ if he fell into manifest heresy; and since the pope cannot incur excommunication for so long as he remains pope, he could not receive supplied jurisdiction from such legislation as Ad evitanda scandala unless he were to fall from the Pontificate by tacit renunciation of office. Only then would he become minor quolibet catholico and accordingly incur excommunication latæ sententiæ, and straightaway receive supplied jurisdiction until his loss of office could be enforced by a declaratory sentence – but he would already have ceased to be pope."

All of the above quotes are taken from:

Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.