Author Topic: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter (Read 24603 times)

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #360 on:** January 29, 2023, 11:09:19 PM »

Quote from: Catholic Knight on January 29, 2023, 06:12:19 PM

What is a public manifest heretic?

Billuart was wrong, as both St. Robert Bellarmine and Fr. Paul Kramer stated, in that he confused ordinary jurisdiction with supplied jurisdiction.

Are you certain that Fr Kramer is infallible on this and that this is the certain teaching of the Magisterium?

After all, it was not just Billuart's opinion, but the common opinion of his time, which was more than 100 years after St Robert:

BILLUART (+1757):
"The more common opinion holds that Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church" - De Fide, Diss V, A III No 3 Obj 2

Are we not just dealing with opinions of theologians?

This is the problem with the SV movement in general, taking what is opinion, what is not certain, and dogmatising it.

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #361 on:** January 30, 2023, 12:00:14 AM »

Quote from: Catholic Knight on January 29, 2023, 06:25:50 PM

What is a public manifest heretic? Please teach me again.

St Robert uses the term manifest heretic.

He explains it here:
The fourth opinion is of Cajetan. There, he teaches, that a manifestly heretical Pope is not ipso facto deposed; but can and ought to be deposed by the Church. Now in my judgement, such an opinion cannot be defended. For in the first place, that a manifest heretic would be ipso facto deposed, is proven from authority and reason. The Authority is of St Paul, who commands Titus, that after two censures, that is, after he appears manifestly perinacious, an heretic is to be shunned: and he understands this before excommunication and sentence of a judge. (On The Roman Pontiff, Bk II, Ch XXX)

So, for him, a manifest heretic is a public formal heretic, not just a material heretic; one whose pertinacity has been demonstrated after admonitions. I think it is likely, given the other quotes of St Robert provided in this thread, that he believed those admonitions should come from a Council, which would judge the heresy and convict the Pope of same. Then would come the declaration from the authority (the Council) of his heresy so that it would be manifest to the Church. Then we have a manifest heretic in the sense that St Robert Bellarmine is referring to:

"The second, whether or not it is lawful for a Council to be summoned by anyone other than the Pope when the Pope should not summon it, for the reason that he is a heretic or schismatic... To the second and third, I respond... in those two cases an imperfect Council could be gathered which would suffice to provide for the Church from the head. For the Church, without a doubt, has the authority to provide for itself from the head... Hence, that imperfect Council can happen, if either it is summoned by the college of Cardinals, or the bishops themselves come together in a place of themselves."

"...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 the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover... 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..."

"...inferiors ought not be free from the obedience to superiors, unless first he were legitimately deposed or declared not to be a superior... 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."

"...the Supreme Pontiff, does not lose jurisdiction, nor dignity, or the name of the head in the Church, until either he separates himself publicly from the Church, or being convicted of heresy is separated against his will."

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #362 on:** January 30, 2023, 12:12:06 AM »

Quote from: Catholic Knight on January 29, 2023, 07:22:02 PM

St. Robert Bellarmine and Fr. Paul Kramer refute Billuart. Ad Evitanda Scandala and Canon 2264 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law concern supplied jurisdiction and not ordinary jurisdiction. To state that a man who holds the papal office, then commits the public sin of manifest formal heresy separates him from the Church by that very public sin (i.e., per se) yet retains ordinary jurisdiction (which is inextricably linked to the papal office) is to state that the papal office can exist separated from the Church. Preposterous!

Given the above quotes of Bellarmine, are you sure, CK, that you and Fr Kramer have the correct understanding of his position?

And still, are we not dealing with opinion, not infallible magisterial teaching?

Even as recently as last Century we had Cardinal Journet (1891-1975) opining:
"The others, as Cajetan and John of St Thomas, whose analysis seems to me more penetrating (than Bellarmine and Suarez), have considered that even after a manifest sin of heresy, the Pope is not yet deposed, but should be deposed by the Church; Papa haereticus non est depositus sed deponendus. Nevertheless, they added, the Church is not on that account above the Pope..." - L'Eglise du Verbe Incarne, vol I, p 625

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #363 on:** January 30, 2023, 01:35:22 AM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on January 30, 2023, 12:00:14 AM

St Robert uses the term manifest heretic.

He explains it here:
The fourth opinion is of Cajetan. There, he teaches, that a manifestly heretical Pope is not ipso facto deposed; but can and ought to be deposed by the Church. Now in my judgement, such an opinion cannot be defended. For in the first place, that a manifest heretic would be ipso facto deposed, is proven from authority and reason. The Authority is of St Paul, who commands Titus, that after two censures, that is, after he appears manifestly perinacious, an heretic is to be shunned: and he understands this before excommunication and sentence of a judge. (On The Roman Pontiff, Bk II, Ch XXX)

So, for him, a manifest heretic is a public formal heretic, not just a material heretic; one whose pertinacity has been demonstrated after admonitions. I think it is likely, given the other quotes of St Robert provided in this thread, that he believed those admonitions should come from a Council, which would judge the heresy and convict the Pope of same. Then would come the declaration from the authority (the Council) of his heresy so that it would be manifest to the Church. Then we have a manifest heretic in the sense that St Robert Bellarmine is referring to:

"The second, whether or not it is lawful for a Council to be summoned by anyone other than the Pope when the Pope should not summon it, for the reason that he is a heretic or schismatic... To the second and third, I respond... in those two cases an imperfect Council could be gathered which would suffice to provide for the Church from the head. For the Church, without a doubt, has the authority to provide for itself from the head... Hence, that imperfect Council can happen, if either it is summoned by the college of Cardinals, or the bishops themselves come together in a place of themselves."

"...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 the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover... 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..."

"...inferiors ought not be free from the obedience to superiors, unless first he were legitimately deposed or declared not to be a superior... 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."

"...the Supreme Pontiff, does not lose jurisdiction, nor dignity, or the name of the head in the Church, until either he separates himself publicly from the Church, or being convicted of heresy is separated against his will."

There is no need to depose anyone.

They never even became consecrated popes.

They were well known heretics before they were elected.

They had already left the Church.

They were no longer Catholic.

Somebody outside the Church cannot become pope.

Can a Muslim or a Protestant or Hindu become pope? No.

They are outside the Church.

You can elect them, dress them up, say the prayers, but no consecration can take place.

Well, it's the same with a heretic. They are not Catholic just like a Muslim or Hindu is not Catholic.

A priest could put a twinkie on the altar and say the prayers but it can't be consecrated because it is invalid matter.

In the same way, a heretic who is outside the Church can be dressed up, and they say the prayers, but it is invalid matter and no papal consecration takes place.

The Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are “ipso facto” deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: “We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right”; and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that the heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same.

https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/on-the-roman-pontiff/

If a heretic, somebody outside the Church, was to somehow magically be consecrated as pope

and teach heresy and guide souls to worship false gods

sending souls to eternal damnation

then the Gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church.

Is that possible?

Our Lord Jesus Christ said NO.

He said that is not possible.

So what happened then?

These men were never consecrated popes in the first place.

The Gates of Hell have not prevailed.

The Church is still here holding fast to the Apostolic Traditions of the

One True Religion

yet without a pope.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #364 on:** January 30, 2023, 05:17:10 AM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on January 30, 2023, 12:00:14 AM

St Robert uses the term manifest heretic.

He explains it here:
The fourth opinion is of Cajetan. There, he teaches, that a manifestly heretical Pope is not ipso facto deposed; but can and ought to be deposed by the Church. Now in my judgement, such an opinion cannot be defended. For in the first place, that a manifest heretic would be ipso facto deposed, is proven from authority and reason. The Authority is of St Paul, who commands Titus, that after two censures, that is, after he appears manifestly perinacious, an heretic is to be shunned: and he understands this before excommunication and sentence of a judge. (On The Roman Pontiff, Bk II, Ch XXX)

So, for him, a manifest heretic is a public formal heretic, not just a material heretic; one whose pertinacity has been demonstrated after admonitions. I think it is likely, given the other quotes of St Robert provided in this thread, that he believed those admonitions should come from a Council, which would judge the heresy and convict the Pope of same. Then would come the declaration from the authority (the Council) of his heresy so that it would be manifest to the Church. Then we have a manifest heretic in the sense that St Robert Bellarmine is referring to:

"The second, whether or not it is lawful for a Council to be summoned by anyone other than the Pope when the Pope should not summon it, for the reason that he is a heretic or schismatic... To the second and third, I respond... in those two cases an imperfect Council could be gathered which would suffice to provide for the Church from the head. For the Church, without a doubt, has the authority to provide for itself from the head... Hence, that imperfect Council can happen, if either it is summoned by the college of Cardinals, or the bishops themselves come together in a place of themselves."

"...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 the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover... 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..."

"...inferiors ought not be free from the obedience to superiors, unless first he were legitimately deposed or declared not to be a superior... 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."

"...the Supreme Pontiff, does not lose jurisdiction, nor dignity, or the name of the head in the Church, until either he separates himself publicly from the Church, or being convicted of heresy is separated against his will."

PV, in fairness let me quote the whole pertinent section from De Romano Pontifice regarding a heretic pope:

On the Roman Pontiff

an extract from

St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30.

While it is true that St. Robert Bellarmine thought it impossible that a pope could ever lose the faith and hence the papacy, he considered this opinion not theologically certain. For this reason he proceeded to examine the question of what would happen were a pope to become a heretic. The following extract from his treatise on the papacy deals with this question. It should be noted that in the spirit of Christian humility we ought not to go against the mind of any Doctor of the Universal Church without very grave reasons (if ever). Hence it is preferable to hold that the manifest heretics John Paul II and Paul VI were never popes at all, being non-Catholics from before their "election" and thus not valid matter for the papacy to begin with. Please note that this translation was done by Mr. Jim Larrabee, who also provided the comments at the end.

"The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom (de auctor. papae et con., cap. 20 et 21) the manifestly heretical Pope is not "ipso facto" deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is "ipso facto" deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us?

"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.

"To this Cajetan responds (in Apol. pro tract. praedicto cap. 25 et in ipso tract. cap. 22) that the heretic is not a Christian "simpliciter" [i.e. without qualification, or absolutely], but is one "secundum quid" [i.e. in a qualified or relative sense]. For, granted that two things constitute the Christian - the faith and the [baptismal] character - the heretic, having lost the faith, is still in some way united to the Church and is capable of jurisdiction; therefore, he is also Pope, but ought to be removed, since he is disposed, with ultimate disposition, to cease to be Pope: as the man who is still not dead but is "in extremis" [at the point of death].

"Against this: in the first place, if the heretic remained, "in actu" [actually], united to the Church in virtue of the character, he would never be able to be cut or separated from her "in actu", for the character is indelible. But there is no one who denies that some people may be separated "in actu" from the Church. Therefore, the character does not make the heretic be "in actu" in the Church, but is only a sign that he was in the Church and that he must return to her. Analogously, when a sheep wanders lost in the mountains, the mark impressed on it does not make it be in the fold, but indicates from which fold it had fled and to which fold it ought to be brought back. This truth has a confirmation in St. Thomas who says (Summ. Theol. III, q. 8, a. 3) that those who do not have the faith are not united "in actu" to Christ, but only potentially - and St. Thomas here refers to the internal union, and not to the external which is produced by the confession of faith and visible signs. Therefore, as the character is something internal, and not external, according to St. Thomas the character alone does not unite a man, "in actu," to Christ.

"Further against the argument of Cajetan: either faith is a disposition necessary "simpliciter" for someone to be Pope, or it is only necessary for someone to be a good Pope ["ad bene esse," to exist well, to be good, as opposed to simply existing]. In the first hypothesis, in case this disposition be eliminated by the contrary disposition, which is heresy, the Pope immediately ceases to be Pope: for the form cannot maintain itself without the necessary dispositions. In the second hypothesis, the Pope cannot be deposed by reason of heresy, for otherwise he would also have to be deposed for ignorance, immorality, and other similar causes, which impede the knowledge, the morality, and the other dispositions necessary for him to be a good Pope ("ad bene esse papae"). In addition to this, Cajetan recognises (tract. praed., ca. 26) that the Pope cannot be deposed for the lack of dispositions necessary, not "simpliciter", but only "ad bene esse."

"To this, Cajetan responds that faith is a disposition necessary "simpliciter", but partial, and not total; and that, therefore, even if his faith disappears he can still continue being Pope, by reason of the other part of the disposition, the character, which still endures.

"Against this argument: either the total disposition, constituted by the character and by faith, is necessary "simpliciter," or it is not, the partial disposition then being sufficient. In the first hypothesis, the faith disappearing there no longer remains the disposition "simpliciter" necessary, for the disposition "simpliciter" necessary was the total, and the total no longer exists. In the second hypothesis, the faith is only necessary "ad bene esse", and therefore its absence does not justify the deposition of the Pope. In addition to this, what finds itself in the ultimate disposition to death, immediately thereafter ceases to exist, without the intervention of any other external force, as is obvious; therefore, also the Pope heretic ceases to be Pope by himself, without any deposition.

"Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are "ipso facto" deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: 'We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right'; and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that the heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same.

"Pope St. Celestine I (epist. ad Jo. Antioch., which appears in Conc. Ephes., tom. I, cap. 19) wrote: 'It is evident that he [who has been excommunicated by Nestorius] has remained and remains in communion with us, and that we do not consider destituted [i.e. deprived of office, by judgment of Nestorius], anyone who has been excommunicated or deprived of his charge, either episcopal or clerical, by Bishop Nestorius or by the others who followed him, after they commenced preaching heresy. For he who had already shown himself as deserving to be excommunicated, could not excommunicate anyone by his sentence.'

"And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople, Pope St. Celestine I says: 'The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.'

"St. Nicholas I (epist. ad Michael) repeats and confirms the same. Finally, St. Thomas also teaches (S. Theol., II-II, q. 39, a. 3) that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and that anything they try to do on the basis of any jurisdiction will be null.

"There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.

"Besides that, the second affirmation of Cajetan, that the Pope heretic can be truly and authoritatively deposed by the Church, is no less false than the first. For if the Church deposes the Pope against his will it is certainly above the Pope; however, Cajetan himself defends, in the same treatise, the contrary of this. Cajetan responds that the Church, in deposing the Pope, does not have authority over the Pope, but only over the link that unites the person to the pontificate. In the same way that the Church in uniting the pontificate to such a person, is not, because of this, above the Pontiff, so also the Church can separate the pontificate from such a person in case of heresy, without saying that it is above the Pope.

"But contrary to this it must be observed in the first place that, from the fact that the Pope deposes bishops, it is deduced that the Pope is above all the bishops, though the Pope on deposing a bishop does not destroy the episcopal jurisdiction, but only separates it from that person. In the second place, to depose anyone from the pontificate against the will of the deposed, is without doubt punishing him; however, to punish is proper to a superior or to a judge. In the third place, given that according to Cajetan and the other Thomists, in reality the whole and the parts taken as a whole are the same thing, he who has authority over the parts taken as a whole, being able to separate them one from another, has also authority over the whole itself which is constituted by those parts.

"The example of the electors, who have the power to designate a certain person for the pontificate, without however having power over the Pope, given by Cajetan, is also destitute of value. For when something is being made, the action is exercised over the matter of the future thing, and not over the composite, which does not yet exist, but when a thing is destroyed, the action is exercised over the composite, as becomes patent on consideration of the things of nature. Therefore, on creating the Pontiff, the Cardinals do not exercise their authority over the Pontiff for he does not yet exist, but over the matter, that is, over the person who by the election becomes disposed to receive the pontificate from God. But if they deposed the Pontiff, they would necessarily exercise authority over the composite, that is, over the person endowed with the pontifical power, that is, over the Pontiff.

"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: 'He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.'

According to what St. Cyprian affirms in this passage, even had Novatian been the true and legitimate Pope, he would have automatically fallen from the pontificate, if he separated himself from the Church.

"This is the opinion of great recent doctors, as John Driedo (lib. 4 de Script. et dogmat. Eccles., cap. 2, par. 2, sent. 2), who teaches that only they separate themselves from the Church who are expelled, like the excommunicated, and those who depart by themselves from her or oppose her, as heretics and schismatics. And in his seventh affirmation, he maintains that in those who turn away from the Church, there remains absolutely no spiritual power over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano says the same (lib. 4 de loc., cap. 2), teaching that heretics are neither parts nor members of the Church, and that it cannot even be conceived that anyone could be head and Pope, without being member and part (cap. ult. ad argument. 12). And he teaches in the same place, in plain words, that occult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members, and that therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope. This is also the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book I De Ecclesia.

"The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics [i.e. who are not heretics] are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved."

Stubborn · « **Reply #365 on:** January 30, 2023, 05:29:58 AM »

Quote from: Catholic Knight on January 29, 2023, 05:09:50 PM

“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.”
(Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 23)

You cannot sever something that was never attached.

This sentence needs to be understood in context. I will say that if you can do away with the sentences immediately before and immediately after it, and also change the opening words of that sentence to “For no other sin," then I would agree with the implications you are trying to convey.

But the pope starts by explaining that not all of her members are holy or predestined to heaven, and referencing Scripture (Luke 15:2) he explains that sinners are not excluded from being members. He then warns against all sin, particularly schism, heresy and apostacy, because the nature of those sins make them the worst of all mortal sins.

The sentence you are quoting is saying that every sin severs, but due to their nature none severs as does schism, heresy or apostacy. If he would have begun your sentence by saying: “For no other sin," then the implications you are trying to convey might have merit.

He then, without excluding heresy etc., goes on to explain the conditions that occur within sinners which move them to repentance and confession.

Aside from all of that, I wish the Church could depose this heretical pope, but it cannot.

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #366 on:** January 30, 2023, 05:57:57 PM »

Quote from: Catholic Knight on January 29, 2023, 07:22:02 PM

St. Robert Bellarmine and Fr. Paul Kramer refute Billuart. Ad Evitanda Scandala and Canon 2264 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law concern supplied jurisdiction and not ordinary jurisdiction. To state that a man who holds the papal office, then commits the public sin of manifest formal heresy separates him from the Church by that very public sin (i.e., per se) yet retains ordinary jurisdiction (which is inextricably linked to the papal office) is to state that the papal office can exist separated from the Church. Preposterous!

Fr Kramer is misrepresenting Billuart, presuming to read his mind and tell us why he said what he said, and both you and he are putting your opinions above the opinion of this highly respected theologian who came after Bellarmine, and whose opinion (unless he was a liar or ignorant) was the common opinion of the day:

In the Treaty on the Rules of Faith (De regulis fidei, diss IV, VIII a, § 2, obj 2 and 6) Billuart defends the following thesis: The sovereign Pontiff is superior to any council by authority and jurisdiction.

It is objected that the Pontiff is subject to the judgment of the Church in the case of heresy. Why then he would not be subject also in other cases?

He replies:
This is because in the case of heresy, and not in other cases, he loses the pontificate by the fact itself of his heresy: how could remain head of the Church he who is no longer a member? This is why he is subject to the judgment of the Church, not in order to be removed, since he is already deposed himself by heresy and he rejected the Pontificate (pontificatum abjecerit), but in order to be declared a heretic, and thus that he will be known to the Church that he is not anymore Pontiff: before this statement [of the Church] it is not permitted to refuse him obedience, because he keeps jurisdiction until then, not by right, as if he were still Pontiff, but in fact, by the will of God and accordingly disposing it for the common good of the Church. (Cursus theologiœ, Pars II-II, Brescia, 1838, p. 123)

Another objector remarked that the Church would be deprived of a remedy if she could not subject the Pope to the Council in the case that he would be harmful and would seek to subvert her.

Billuart replied that:
If the pope sought to harm her in the faith, he would be manifestly heretical, and he would thereby lose the Pontificate: however it should be necessary a declaration of the Church in order to deny him obedience, as we have said above. (Cursus theologiœ, Pars II-II, Brescia, 1838, p. 125)
If the Pope would harm the Church otherwise than in the faith, some say that one could resist him by the force of arms, however without losing his superiority. St. Thomas Aquinas said it would be necessary to appeal to God in order to correct him or taking him away from this world (4 Sent. D. 19, q. 2, a. 2 q.1a 3, ad 2).
Billuart prefers to think that:
Whereas God governs and sustains his Church with a special Providence, he will not permit, as he has not permitted it so far, that this situation will happen, and if he permits it, he will not fail to give the means and the help appropriate. (Cursus theologiœ, Pars II-II, Brescia, 1838, p. 125)

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #367 on:** January 30, 2023, 06:16:50 PM »

I'm confused here.

Stubborn, PV, Meg, Sean

do you guys really believe a non Catholic can become pope?

If the Dalai Lama was elected would you give him obedience?

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #368 on:** January 30, 2023, 07:38:10 PM »

Quote from: Miser Peccator on January 30, 2023, 06:16:50 PM

I'm confused here.

Stubborn, PV, Meg, Sean

do you guys really believe a non Catholic can become pope?

If the Dalai Lama was elected would you give him obedience?

Would you offer the Holy Sacrifice of Our Dear Lord's Body and Blood in union with the Dalai Lama?

If not, then why is it any different with these non Catholic Antichrist "popes"?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #369 on:** January 30, 2023, 07:47:58 PM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on January 30, 2023, 05:57:57 PM

Fr Kramer is misrepresenting Billuart, ...

Blah blah blah. Catholic Magisterium and Catholic Public Worship (i.e. the Mass) can never become corrupt or harmful. Besides that, whatever theory you want to hold is fine.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #370 on:** January 30, 2023, 08:11:20 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on January 30, 2023, 07:47:58 PM

Blah blah blah. Catholic Magisterium and Catholic Public Worship (i.e. the Mass) can never become corrupt or harmful. Besides that, whatever theory you want to hold is fine.

Lad-

You should write a book called "Where they all went wrong: Correcting the errors of the classic theologians," wherein you announce that you are correcting the errors of all those eminent theologians who didn't have the prescience or foresight to know they would be contradicting you, and in which you announce that because they opposed you in ignorance, you are absolving them all of their manifest formal pertinacious blasphemous schismatic apostate heresies.

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #371 on:** January 30, 2023, 09:16:17 PM »

Quote from: Miser Peccator on January 30, 2023, 07:38:10 PM

Would you offer the Holy Sacrifice of Our Dear Lord's Body and Blood in union with the Dalai Lama?

If not, then why is it any different with these non Catholic Antichrist "popes"?

Sorry, I meant to make that small "a".

That's the term used by ABL:

"antichrist popes".

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #372 on:** January 30, 2023, 10:31:47 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on January 30, 2023, 07:47:58 PM

Blah blah blah. Catholic Magisterium and Catholic Public Worship (i.e. the Mass) can never become corrupt or harmful. Besides that, whatever theory you want to hold is fine.

I agree Ladislaus, provided you hold your belief as a theory. There lies the problem.
With my theory, Catholic Magisterium has never become corrupt, nor could it ever, in the very sense that the Church infallibly teaches, and in the very sense that the Fathers and Doctors have always taught.
Nor has Catholic worship become harmful, it exists as it has always done.

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #373 on:** January 30, 2023, 10:38:38 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on January 30, 2023, 07:47:58 PM

Blah blah blah.

I was hoping, now that I have progressed from Newbie to Junior Member (I notched up two yellow squares in this past week for those of you who didn't notice!!!) that I might get a little more respect from Lad.

I realise now I'm deceiving myself. Sean has five of those golden stars and he doesn't get any respect either...

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #374 on:** January 30, 2023, 11:18:14 PM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on January 30, 2023, 10:38:38 PM

I was hoping, now that I have progressed from Newbie to Junior Member (I notched up two yellow squares in this past week for those of you who didn't notice!!!) that I might get a little more respect from Lad.

I realise now I'm deceiving myself. Sean has five of those golden stars and he doesn't get any respect either...

No worries, mate. I have four of those little yellow squares

and yet people don't answer my questions.

I'm not a theologian or anything

so they are very simple questions.

Why won't people answer?

Here are the last few that were skipped over in this thread, PV:

Quote

I'm confused here.

Stubborn, PV, Meg, Sean

do you guys really believe a non Catholic can become pope?

If the Dalai Lama was elected would you give him obedience?

Would you offer the Holy Sacrifice of Our Dear Lord's Body and Blood in union with the Dalai Lama?

If not, then why is it any different with these non Catholic Antichrist "popes"?

(Again, the term antichrist should have been written with a small "a" in the same way ABL called these popes antichrists so I apologize for that error.)

Do you have an explanation that will help me understand this conundrum, PV? Or Lad or Sean?

Do I need to stop assisting at non Una cuм Masses and

join in with Masses united to non Catholic antichrists?

How did these antichrists get elected and consecrated

when they were known heretics beforehand?

Author Topic: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter (Read 24603 times)

Plenus Venter

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

Miser Peccator

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

Quo vadis Domine

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

Stubborn

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

Plenus Venter

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

Miser Peccator

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

Miser Peccator

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

Ladislaus

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

SeanJohnson

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

Miser Peccator

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

Miser Peccator

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