Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on November 14, 2023, 08:32:08 PM
-
https://www.lifesitenews.com/episodes/bishop-schneider-responds-to-archbishop-vigano-on-papal-legitimacy/?utm_source=most_recent&utm_campaign=catholic
2:15 - Schneider rejects Vigano's analogy to sacramental theology (rightly, I think, because acceptance of an office is not the confection of a sacrament). But that does not negate the absurdity of Schneider's previously aired position regarding a heretical pope.
5:45 - Repeating Billot
9:50 - Rejects Vigano's historical example; says St. Vincent Ferrer who sided initially with anti-pope later recognized his error and sided with the true pope
-
Hmm...
Schneider is making more formidable arguments than previously.
At 14:30 - 17:00, he implicitly begins rejecting cuм Ex Apostolatus without naming it (this goes on for a couple minutes).
:popcorn:
PS: His weakness comes at 18:10 when he says it is a greater damage to have a deposition which divides the Church and plunges us back into a GWS, than to endure for a short time a bad pope. That argument ignores that we have endured 65 years of bad popes, and there is no change in sight with a stacked deck (not merely the 10 years Schneider references under Francis).
-
I've long suspected that +Schneider is the controlled opposition and gatekeeper for Jorge, carrying water for him. This didn't become more clear than when he adopted the absurd opinion that there's no way for the Church to be rid of a heretical pope, an opinion that no one has held since Bellarmine first refuted it.
-
I've long suspected that +Schneider is the controlled opposition and gatekeeper for Jorge, carrying water for him. This didn't become more clear than when he adopted the absurd opinion that there's no way for the Church to be rid of a heretical pope, an opinion that no one has held since Bellarmine first refuted it.
Agreed, but this time he’s covering the bases (eg., saying that these theologians taught what they taught as theologians, but that the Church has never taught their positions magisterially).
-
2:15 - Schneider rejects Vigano's analogy to sacramental theology (rightly, I think, because acceptance of an office is not the confection of a sacrament).
I disagree. It's an analogy regarding intention and it can apply whether one's dealing with the reception of a Sacrament or the acceptance of an office. Bishop Sanborn has long made the same analogy.
I don't agree that this is the crux of the issue, however. I believe that the root cause of Jorge's illegitimacy goes back decades.
-
Agreed, but this time he’s covering the bases (eg., saying that these theologians taught what they taught as theologians, but that the Church has never taught their positions magisterially).
OK, so? And the Church never taught his position Magisterially either, so his opinion is worth what? ... other than to persuade fence-sitters like Matt, Marshall, and their followers to stay on board with Jorge. As such, they are material cooperators with all the evils perpetrated by Jorge Bergoglio. Since Schneider is not against him, he is with him. Despite his posturing as such, +Schneider is no friend of Tradition, but an enemy.
+Vigano recognizes that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, but an Anti-Church. +Schneider just sees the situation as some problems that need to be fixed but don't go to the core of the faith.
-
I believe that both +Huonder and +Schneider are agents of Jorge Bergoglio with distinct but related missions.
-
Schneider’s big argument is that common sense and historical praxis show us that enduring a bad pope for a short time, and perhaps condemning him later, is much better than having some cardinals or bishops cause a schism by declaring him deposed. And his grand finale is, “It (Francis’s pontificate) is not eternal.”
The problem here is that the troubles which beset the Church are not merely the product of Francis, but span 65 years, a Council, and 7 popes (with all the voting cardinals in the next conclave being appointed by these aberrational popes, suggesting therefore that there will be continuity with what has transpired since the Council).
It is against this backdrop that one must weigh the value of Schneider’s claim that the present troubles “are not eternal” and therefore enduring them is better than dividing the Church with sedevacantism or a deposition.
One more consideration: Schneider’s position expresses great concern for the unity of the ecclesial body (eg., fear of schism), but which result is the worse for souls: the faithful enduring potentially hundreds of years of heretical popes, or a schism whereby the Church divides over the issue?
Very possibly, more would be saved in the latter scenario?
-
I believe that both +Huonder and +Schneider are agents of Jorge Bergoglio with distinct but related missions.
Clearly.
-
I’ll comment tomorrow when I have time, but the first five minutes I was able to listen to are complete hogwash.
-
Thanks for this Sean and your commentary is very accurate. I think the interviewer was a bit lacking because he should have asked some pressing questions regarding V2, the other popes and the NO etc., but from what I heard, I get the impression that +Schneider likely would have defended all that. Beyond that, the things he said which you posted are those things that Catholics have always believed. Strange to hear a NO bishop say some of those things.
-
Bishop Schneider holds to the Third Opinion of the Five Opinions expounded upon by St. Robert Bellarmine. The Third Opinion is as follows:
That a pope who is even a manifest heretic is not deposed ipso facto and cannot be deposed by the Church.
St. Robert Bellarmine called this opinion "extremely improbable". More importantly, this opinion indirectly opposes the Magisterium of Pope Pius XII who taught in Mystici Corporis that the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church.
Bishop Schneider's holding to the Third Opinion alone should make one ignore him on this matter.
-
Bishop Schneider holds to the Third Opinion of the Five Opinions expounded upon by St. Robert Bellarmine. The Third Opinion is as follows:
That a pope who is even a manifest heretic is not deposed ipso facto and cannot be deposed by the Church.
St. Robert Bellarmine called this opinion "extremely improbable". More importantly, this opinion indirectly opposes the Magisterium of Pope Pius XII who taught in Mystici Corporis that the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church.
Bishop Schneider's holding to the Third Opinion alone should make one ignore him on this matter.
Not only is it "extremely improbable", but no theologian has held this opinion since it was refuted by St. Robert. This opinion is a joke, and his clinging to it is to me the clearest sign that he's out there working for Jorge as a "Trad" gate-keeper and controlled opposition.
One might also wonder why +Schneider hasn't been silenced. +Strickland got sacked for saying much less than +Schneider's criticisms of Bergoglio. It's possible that Jorge won't sack him or silence him because he doesn't want to turn more of the Trad, Inc. types against him even more ... or else he hasn't silenced him because he's actually working for him and his interests. I'm inclined to think the latter.
-
Thanks for this Sean and your commentary is very accurate. I think the interviewer was a bit lacking because he should have asked some pressing questions regarding V2, the other popes and the NO etc., but from what I heard, I get the impression that +Schneider likely would have defended all that. Beyond that, the things he said which you posted are those things that Catholics have always believed. Strange to hear a NO bishop say some of those things.
+Schneider is already on record defending Vatican II. He felt that V2 could be "fixed" by amending one or two sentences in it, so a bit more than +Fellay's 95% (maybe 99%). That is what originally prompted +Vigano to issue his June 9, 2020 letter denouncing V2 as radically flawed and needing to be pitched completely ... that was a response to +Schneider.
-
So +Schneider opens by rejecting +Vigano's vitium consensus position, calling it "extremely weak". He claims that analogy with intention to receive a Sacrament doesn't apply, because we're dealing here with an office rather than a Sacrament. This is a gratuitous assertion that is not backed up by anything, and it's false. This is an analogy for sure, and analogies aren't perfect, but there's sufficient similarity between the two to justify the analogy.
Both the reception of a Sacrament and assuming the papal office require consent. If a man were elected pope and did not give his consent, he would not be the pope. So the analogy is quite valid. Question is WHAT the individual needs to consent to, merely to have the title?
He also claims that intention is a matter of the internal forum. This too is completely false. Intention is something that can be expressed and known in the external forum. "Internal Forum" only applies to matters related to subjective guilt and subjective dispositions, but things like intention can be known in the external forum. If a woman told some friends that she intended to marry some guy just to get his money and had every intention of divorcing him after a few months, walking away with child support and alimony, that intention has been manifested in the external forum. Now, her degree of guilt, given her knowledge, etc., THOSE are matters for the internal forum, but intention can be known in the external forum. +Vigano makes a case for why we can know from the external forum that Bergoglio intended to "change" the Church ... based on his own public statements, and since the office of the Papacy inherently (as taught by Vatican II) is to preserve and safeguard the Deposit of Revelation (for which +Strickland even called out Jorge for denying), the argument is that he did not mean to assume the papal office in terms of what its purpose or primary end was.
+Schneider then tries to make a false analogy with popes who only accepted the office for ulterior motives ... so they could enrich themselves, etc. and didn't really care about the papacy. But none of these pervert popes expressed any contrary intention regarding the papal office itself, that they wanted to use it to change and corrupt the Church. They simply had ulterior motives. I liken this to the ends of marriage. Most couples make use of that without any explicit thought or regard for the primary ends of marital relations, the procreation of children. But so long as they don't exclude the primary end and recognize it intellectually to be the primary end, they're not subverting or excluding the primary end of marital relations. Same thing with these popes. They were primarily motivated by the ancillary benefits of being the pope, but they did not exclude the primary end of the office, to safeguard the Deposit of Revelation ... even if they could hardly care less about it on a day to day basis. Argument regarding Jorge is that he deliberately sought to exclude and to contradict the primary end of the papal office, namely, to safeguard the Deposit of Faith.
I'll come back to the rest later.
-
So +Schneider opens by rejecting +Vigano's vitium consensus position, calling it "extremely weak". He claims that analogy with intention to receive a Sacrament doesn't apply, because we're dealing here with an office rather than a Sacrament. This is a gratuitous assertion that is not backed up by anything, and it's false. This is an analogy for sure, and analogies aren't perfect, but there's sufficient similarity between the two to justify the analogy.
He backed it up, he said the law states that "the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world." <--- This is the law. Did he not basically say that although proper intention is presumed, according to the law it is not one of the requirements?
Although I do agree that to us, "there's sufficient similarity between the two to justify the analogy," proper intention was not made a requirement by the former popes who made the law. According to the law therefore, the idea that proper intention is required is the gratuitous assertion whether we like it or not.
-
So +Schneider opens by rejecting +Vigano's vitium consensus position, calling it "extremely weak". He claims that analogy with intention to receive a Sacrament doesn't apply, because we're dealing here with an office rather than a Sacrament. This is a gratuitous assertion that is not backed up by anything, and it's false. This is an analogy for sure, and analogies aren't perfect, but there's sufficient similarity between the two to justify the analogy.
Both the reception of a Sacrament and assuming the papal office require consent. If a man were elected pope and did not give his consent, he would not be the pope. So the analogy is quite valid. Question is WHAT the individual needs to consent to, merely to have the title?
He also claims that intention is a matter of the internal forum. This too is completely false. Intention is something that can be expressed and known in the external forum. "Internal Forum" only applies to matters related to subjective guilt and subjective dispositions, but things like intention can be known in the external forum. If a woman told some friends that she intended to marry some guy just to get his money and had every intention of divorcing him after a few months, walking away with child support and alimony, that intention has been manifested in the external forum. Now, her degree of guilt, given her knowledge, etc., THOSE are matters for the internal forum, but intention can be known in the external forum. +Vigano makes a case for why we can know from the external forum that Bergoglio intended to "change" the Church ... based on his own public statements, and since the office of the Papacy inherently (as taught by Vatican II) is to preserve and safeguard the Deposit of Revelation (for which +Strickland even called out Jorge for denying), the argument is that he did not mean to assume the papal office in terms of what its purpose or primary end was.
+Schneider then tries to make a false analogy with popes who only accepted the office for ulterior motives ... so they could enrich themselves, etc. and didn't really care about the papacy. But none of these pervert popes expressed any contrary intention regarding the papal office itself, that they wanted to use it to change and corrupt the Church. They simply had ulterior motives. I liken this to the ends of marriage. Most couples make use of that without any explicit thought or regard for the primary ends of marital relations, the procreation of children. But so long as they don't exclude the primary end and recognize it intellectually to be the primary end, they're not subverting or excluding the primary end of marital relations. Same thing with these popes. They were primarily motivated by the ancillary benefits of being the pope, but they did not exclude the primary end of the office, to safeguard the Deposit of Revelation ... even if they could hardly care less about it on a day to day basis. Argument regarding Jorge is that he deliberately sought to exclude and to contradict the primary end of the papal office, namely, to safeguard the Deposit of Faith.
I'll come back to the rest later.
Great post, Lad!!
-
He backed it up, he said the law states that "the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world." <--- This is the law. Did he not basically say that although proper intention is presumed, according to the law it is not one of the requirements?
Although I do agree that to us, "there's sufficient similarity between the two to justify the analogy," proper intention was not made a requirement by the former popes who made the law. According to the law therefore, the idea that proper intention is required is the gratuitous assertion whether we like it or not.
But Lad’s point still stands:
A man does not become pope once he is elected, but only once he accepts.
Now, whether having an intention contrary to the purpose of the office of pope nullifies that “acceptance,” is the heart of the matter.
I’m not sure what the correct answer is, but I know this:
On the one hand, if Vigano is right, then all the adverse consequences of the sedevacantist position must now be dealt with (eg., the disappearance of apostolicity, and so on).
On the other hand, it seems preposterous to me that Schneider’s position could be the correct one.
-
On the one hand, if Vigano is right, then all the adverse consequences of the sedevacantist position must now be dealt with (eg., the disappearance of apostolicity, and so on).
+Schneider says that the Church can withstand a pope who's in error. Well, no duh, we all know that. We know the Church is indefectible. That's a red herring. Question is whether a Pope who's not only in error but teaching error from the chair (in his "Magisterium") is compatible with the promises of Christ regarding the Catholic Church. While the Church per se can withstand such a "pope," tell that to the untold millions of souls who have been lost on account of V2 and the post-V2 papal claimants.
See, people like +Schneider have the obligation to stand up to Jorge and accuse him ... as +Vigano has done. That is precisely how the Church would rid herself of a heretic pope, where the hierarchy stands up to him and they would ultimately declare him a heretic. So +Schneider is shirking his responsibility as a bishop to do exactly that, and his clinging to the bogus "third opinion" is his way of shirking that duty, claiming there's nothing they can do.
I find it ironic that his name is Athanasius. We know St. Athanasius, and "he's no Athanasius". He should be called Liberius Schneider, since it was Liberius who played footsie with the Arians (and is thus the first non-canonized pope in the Church). Athanaius on the other hand did what he had to do, going around consecrating Catholic bishops for Sees that had been usurped by the Arians. You can be 100% certain that if Liberius had gone full Arian, St. Athanaius would have denounced him and worked to have him replaced by an actual Catholic.
At the end of the day, however, I am inclined to think that +Schneider is controlled opposition, a gate-keeper ... to prevent Trad, Inc. from going off into Traditional Catholicism.
-
On the other hand, it seems preposterous to me that Schneider’s position could be the correct one.
Yeah, it's St. Robert Bellarmine vs. +Schneider. I think I'd have to side with St. Robert there. No to mention that no theologian has for centuries held that "third opinion".
I haven't gotten to the part yet where he rejects cuм ex. There you have Pope Paul IV vs. +Schneider ... and, again, I'd have to go with Pope Paul IV. But perhaps I misunderstand and he's merely denying that cuм ex applies to the current situation. I haven't actually listened to that part yet.
-
Before the day is out, I’m going to send a link to this interview to Avrille, along with some commentary, and ask them to assess the positions of Vigano and Schneider.
I’ll be particularly interested to see what they say, since they support Vigano, but his consent argument seems implicitly opposed to the “one pope for two churches” position we RR have backed from the beginning.
-
Did they publish a written transcript of the interview? It would be nice to have it in writing rather than parsing out stuff from a video/audio.
-
So in the next section he's denouncing the notion that any kind of irregularities in conclaves would render an election invalid, since once he's accepted by the Cardinals and Bishops, he's the pope ... since the method of election is not of divine law. Of course it's not of divine law, but it's of papal law. Popes lay down the method of election for their successors, and those must be abided by. Not only does it render cuм ex moot, but also any of the conditions laid out by Wojtyla the Great (or earlier by Pius XII) that, according to their instructions, would invalidate an election. Evidently Wojtyla felt that certain things should invalidate an election, and so did Paul IV ... despite +Schneider's claims to the contrary.
So the divine law vs. papal law is a distinction without a difference. It's a bogus. The fact that it's not of divine law is what allows various popes to change the method of election, but that doesn't mean that the papal law means nothing and can be ignored. If something IS of divine law, the pope can't change it. So, for instance, the pope can't abrogate one of the 10 commandments. But the pope can make law beyond the divine law, where if it's bound on earth it's bound in heaven.
-
His weakness comes at 18:10 when he says it is a greater damage to have a deposition which divides the Church and plunges us back into a GWS, than to endure for a short time a bad pope. That argument ignores that we have endured 65 years of bad popes, and there is no change in sight with a stacked deck (not merely the 10 years Schneider references under Francis).
.
Yes, and also it falsely claims that Bergoglio being declared deposed would split the Church. It wouldn't. What would happen would be that Bergoglio and all his followers would be excommunicated, like Martin Luther, and then they would be outside the Church, while the Church itself would remain intact.
Moreover, the problems with Bergoglio will not end with his death. As long as he is considered to be a true pope, the Church will have the insoluble problem to explain how a pope could officially allow adulterers to receive communion by a universal Church law, for example. If he is declared a false pope, that problem is resolved. If we just wait around until he dies, it is not resolved.
-
So in the next section he's denouncing the notion that any kind of irregularities in conclaves would render an election invalid, since once he's accepted by the Cardinals and Bishops, he's the pope
His argument here is easily refuted simply be reflecting upon the theoretical absurdity which would arise, were a man elected, but openly refused to accept the papacy:
According to Schneider’s logic, so long as all the cardinals insisted he was pope anyway, then pope he would be!
This absurd theoretical highlights the argument that consent is a relevant factor.
And a rhetorical question to Schneider supporters would be this: If there is no recourse against an elected and universally accepted pope, then why did JPII bother to write about invalidating causes in UDG (ie., any such considerations would be frivolous)?
But the biggest weakness in Schneider’s position, to me, is his claim that we only endure a bad pope for a short time (“It is not eternal.”). But if we’ve now endured 7 popes deviating from the Faith, who’ve stacked the deck to ensure the continuity of said deviations, then Schneider’s position is no less problematic than sedevacantism, since heretical popes stretched out across several generations, against whom we have no recourse, all but guarantees the loss of orthodox belief on earth (whereas sedevacantism, supposing it were wrong, would only result in schism, leaving a large group who rejected it still retaining the faith).
Effectively, Schneider is saying that schism is the greatest evil, but never pauses to consider that while his position would ostensibly preserve ecclesiastical unity, that unity would be predicated upon universal apostasy (which is indisputably a greater evil than schism, for the aforementioned reason).
-
He gets really ridiculous toward the end, when he's asked whether if a subsequent Pope were to retroactively declare Jorge a heretic and non-pope, he would fight that or accept it. He says the Church will never do this because the Magisterium has never endorsed the idea that a Pope would lose his office for heresy. So what? Just because the Magisterium hasn't endorsed the idea yet (although we do have a teaching from Pope Innocent that says otherwise, and Paul IV says otherwise, etc.), the Magisterium hasn't rejected the notion or ruled it out. It's as if he's extrapolating a non-decision from the Magisterium as a decision that Popes cannot lose office on account of heresy. There's an overwhelming consensus to the contrary since the time of St. Robert Bellarmine. Even those who continue with the Cajetan / John of St. Thomas position don't agree with this. It's utter nonsense. Basically, he's pretending that the Magisterium has endorsed the "third opinion", which is utter nonsense.
-
It's as if he's extrapolating a non-decision from the Magisterium as a decision that Popes cannot lose office on account of heresy. There's an overwhelming consensus to the contrary since the time of St. Robert Bellarmine. Even those who continue with the Cajetan / John of St. Thomas position don't agree with this. It's utter nonsense. Basically, he's pretending that the Magisterium has endorsed the "third opinion", which is utter nonsense.
Agreed, and agreed.
-
But Lad’s point still stands:
A man does not become pope once he is elected, but only once he accepts.
But that is not what the law says, it says "once elected he "instantly" becomes the pope, which is to say he is the pope once elected - but - if he does not want to be the pope, then it's either too bad for him, or he has to abdicate. That is the law.
That being the case and if you start there, then all the ideas about intention are gratuitous assertions whether we like it or not, or if we think it should not work that way.
-
He gets really ridiculous toward the end, when he's asked whether if a subsequent Pope were to retroactively declare Jorge a heretic and non-pope, he would fight that or accept it. He says the Church will never do this because the Magisterium has never endorsed the idea that a Pope would lose his office for heresy. So what? Just because the Magisterium hasn't endorsed the idea yet (although we do have a teaching from Pope Innocent that says otherwise, and Paul IV says otherwise, etc.), the Magisterium hasn't rejected the notion or ruled it out. It's as if he's extrapolating a non-decision from the Magisterium as a decision that Popes cannot lose office on account of heresy. There's an overwhelming consensus to the contrary since the time of St. Robert Bellarmine. Even those who continue with the Cajetan / John of St. Thomas position don't agree with this. It's utter nonsense. Basically, he's pretending that the Magisterium has endorsed the "third opinion", which is utter nonsense.
You're looking at this through the wrong lenses. What is happening here is that the Magisterium teaches the man elected is the pope - period. But you're saying "so what?" This is all it amounts to.
-
I've long suspected that +Schneider is the controlled opposition and gatekeeper for Jorge, carrying water for him. This didn't become more clear than when he adopted the absurd opinion that there's no way for the Church to be rid of a heretical pope, an opinion that no one has held since Bellarmine first refuted it.
.
Not to mention ... who benefits from promoting this opinion? Our old friend Bergoglio, of course!
I did think Schneider was of good intentions in the past, but now it's starting to look doubtful to me as well.
-
Not only is it "extremely improbable", but no theologian has held this opinion since it was refuted by St. Robert.
Fr. Marie Dominique Bouix (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02711e.htm) held the Third Opinion.
-
Fr. Marie Dominique Bouix (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02711e.htm) held the Third Opinion.
.
I think Ladislaus meant "no theologian that anyone has actually heard of". :laugh1:
-
Fr. Paul Kramer and Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira mention him in their work. Also, this study (https://mail.sspx.ca/Communicantes/Dec2004/Is_That_Chair_Vacant.htm) by Fr. Dominique Boulet mentions him.
-
Fr. Marie Dominique Bouix (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02711e.htm) held the Third Opinion.
OK. I had never heard of this guy. So I looked him up. He actually holds the first opinion, that a Pope can't fall into heresy as a private person, and then among the three remaining others he considered (he had a list of 4), he did hold this was preferable. He rejects John of St. Thomas' contention that having a General Council declare a Pope deposed would eliminate the chaos, saying that it would have the same effect. Also, he rightly points out that if the Pope weren't deposed until a Church Council deposed him, the bishops would in fact be acting schismatically since the Pope would oppose and reject the Council ... if he didn't cease to be pope until the declaration.
But here's the problem, and the problem with all the opinions. They all refer to a Pope as a private person, not as teaching error and heresy to the Church.
Here's a quote from Bouix --
To the faithful it would be said: Hold to the orthodox faith which the Pope teaches and defines ex officio as Pontiff: but reject the heresy to which he is said to adhere as a private person. Of this personal sin of the Pontiff it would be said, just as of his corrupted morals ...
He denies that a Pope could teach heresy to the Church, but clearly has in mind someone like Jorge going around spouting heresy in private, like he does on his private plane or in interviews with Scalfari. He likens private heresy to corrupt morals, but does not imagine a scenario of a pope teaching his heresy to the Church.
Here's the link for those who want to read this opinion:
https://lumenscholasticuм.wordpress.com/2019/05/05/bouix-on-the-pope-heretic/
-
I think Ladislaus meant "no theologian that anyone has actually heard of". :laugh1:
Right. I stand corrected on my broad statement. But it remains true that this was an extreme minority opinion. This is the same scenario where I kept objecting to Stubborn's opinion of once Catholic always Catholic by virtue of the character of Baptism. I said that was not held by any theologian, but I did find one cited by Msgr. Fenton, so I had to retract that. He too was the only one who held that, and the opinion had been abandoned.
-
So, I understand quite clearly why he opposes the Cajetan / John of St. Thomas position that a Council cannot depose a pope. He's saying that if he remains the pope until the Council's declaration, convening a Council against the will of the Pope would be schismatic and the declaration would in fact be judging a pope ... basically the same argument that most of the Bellarmine adherents make against the position.
But it took me a long time to understand what the heck he was talking about in rejecting the ipso facto position:
Therefore 2° if it be conceded that the Pope lapsed into heresy does not thus fall from the Papacy, but that he is still Pope and retains Papal jurisdiction, it is repugnant that he be subject to the general council, and that he be able to be judged and deposed by it. And 1° if it be said that the Pope is ipso facto deposed because of heresy, it is repugnant that the council be above the Pope, since one deposed from the Papacy is no longer Pope. Therefore in no case can it happen that the Pope be subject to the jurisdiction of the general council because of heresy.
He is assuming that a Council would judge him guilty of heresy. So he's basically rejecting the S&S position for the same reasons a lot of us have rejected it. If he's pope until he's judged guilty of heresy by a Council, you're judging a pope.
So it looks like he's putting the S&S spin onto the ipso facto position, and rejecting it on those grounds.
But he didn't address the actual Bellarmine position, which I believe is actually sedeprivationism before the term was coined.
Bellarmine cites the example of Pope St. Celestine's teaching regarding the case of Nestorius, where Nestorius had lost authority and was in a state of excommunicandus from the moment he began to "preach" heresy, before the Pope had officially removed him from office.
In fact, the whole point and argument made by those who hold the ipso facto position is precisely the same argument he's making that if the Pope is not deposed ipso facto, by God, BEFORE any judgment of a pope, this would be for a Council to exert authority over a Pope. In this case, this would be a Council exercising authority over a non-pope. So Bouix misrepresents the ipso facto position the same way S&S have done.
-
OK. I had never heard of this guy. So I looked him up. He actually holds the first opinion, that a Pope can't fall into heresy as a private person, and then among the three remaining others he considered (he had a list of 4), he did hold this was preferable.
Interesting. The three people I mentioned in my post above have him holding the Third Opinion.
-
What's really bizarre is that he doesn't even mention Bellarmine as among those who hold this opinion:
THE SECOND OPINION which, supposing that the Pope can become a heretic, holds that he is deposed by heresy ipso facto. — Turrecremata (https://books.google.com/books?id=w1jdvze2SywC&pg=PA363), Augustinus de Ancona (https://books.google.com/books?id=HIjVQardG-MC&pg=PA49), Paludanus (https://books.google.com/books?id=v0Z1PZoPJP0C&pg=PT93), Driedo (https://books.google.com/books?id=yq4yWFzOVAQC&pg=PA233), Castillio, Symmanchas (https://books.google.com/books?id=6GRGRSn74ZsC&pg=PA93), Jacobatius (https://books.google.com/books?id=RrxUAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA106), and Salmeron have defended this opinion. Its chief arguments generally are these: 1° Faith is the necessary foundation of any ecclesiastical jurisdiction whatsoever. Therefore the papal jurisdiction cannot stand simultaneous with heresy. Therefore the Pope, falling into heresy, by this very fact ceases to be Pope, that is, he is deposed. — 2° Many texts of the holy Fathers clearly indicate, that anyone who lacks faith is not able to have jurisdiction in the Church (see the citations in Suárez, De fide, disp. X, sect. vi, n. 2 (https://archive.org/details/rpfranciscisuare00suar_6/page/n221)). — 3° A heretic is not a member of the Church; therefore neither can he be the head. — 4° A heretic ought to be avoided (II Titus 13:10); and he ought not to be greeted (II John 10-11). Therefore a fortiori obedience is not owed to him. But a Pope to whom obedience is not owed, is no longer Pope, but has been deprived of the Papacy. Therefore the Pope, by falling into heresy, ipso facto loses the papal power.
Of all the theologians whom he cites as holding this, Bellarmine doesn't appear in the list. Is it because he considers Bellarmine to hold the "it's not possible for a pope to become a heretic even as a private person" theory?
-
Interesting. The three people I mentioned in my post above have him holding the Third Opinion.
"There has been no theologian of repute subscribing to the third opinion since Marie Dominique Bouix, a French canonist who died in December 1870. As I mentioned above, Bouix was the last to hold this opinion, and is only one out of 137 authors listed by Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira as having held this opinion. Yet, it is precisely this untenable opinion which is at present becoming popular among lay Catholic writers who seem unaware of the theologically problematic difficulties that beset this opinion."
Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.
-
Interesting. The three people I mentioned in my post above have him holding the Third Opinion.
Yes, he holds what he numbers the First, but then later says "granting but not conceding" the possibility of a Pope becoming a heretic as a private person, which he refers to as a "hypothetical", he states that the Bellarmine 3rd opinion is most preferable and rejects the other two.
-
So, digging in here to Bouix's reasoning for rejecting the ipso facto position:
This opinion is opposed by the following arguments: 1° If the Pope were deposed ipso facto because of heresy, this would happen either by divine law, or by human law. But it is neither. For since the penalty of deposition is most grave, in order that it be incurred by divine law, it would need to be expressed in divine law. But there is found no ordinance of divine law which establishes this, whether generally concerning heretics, or in particular concerning Bishops, or most particularly concerning the Pope. Nor is there any certain tradition concerning this.
Bellarmine disputes that there's no "certain tradition" regarding the matter, holding that it was unanimously held by the Fathers.
Apart from that, Bouix has an extremely narrow view of divine law. Is he expecting something in the New Testament where Our Lord states, "If ever a successor of Peter falls into heresy, he would cease to be pope." Divine Law can also be established by principles inherent in Catholic ecclesiology. So, for example, I see no "ordinance of divine law" either stating that a female can't be the pope, nor do I see one that says an infidel can't be pope, nor an ordinance that some baptized Prot could not be the pope, etc. These are known with certainty from Catholic doctrine / dogma regarding the nature of the Church and of the papacy, that only a male member of the Catholic Church can be a pope. From there you define what membership in the Church means according to Catholic ecclesiology, and the conclusion is effectively divine law, whether or not there's some explicit statement made by Our Lord or in Sacred Scripture or Tradition (though Bellarmine holds that it is certain from Tradition). Of course, Our Lord did teach that he who does not hear the Church should be treated as a heathen and a publican, i.e. as outside the Church. This is very weak from Bouix. I see now why no one has really heard of him.
-
Bouix then goes on to give his second reason against ipso facto ... practical considerations:
2° It would be most pernicious for the Church, if the Pope were deposed ipso facto because of heresy. For this is understood either only of notorious and public heresy, or also of external occult heresy, or of internal heresy. Regarding public and notorious heresy, there would be doubt as to how great the notoriety or infamy ought to be, in order that the Pontiff be considered to have fallen from the Papacy. Then there would follow schisms, and all would be perplexed, especially if, notwithstanding the notoriety alleged, the Pope were to retain the see through force or through some other way, and were to exercise many of the acts of his office. With regard to external but occult heresy, even greater detriments would arise. For all of the deeds of the Pontiff who is thus an occult heretic, would be null and void, and this would be known to but a few. It would be still more inconvenient, if the Pope were deposed ipso facto by internal heresy, as is clear. Wherefore it cannot be supposed that Christ willed the Pontiff to be deprived of the papacy on account of heresy, unless perhaps after the Church should declare the Pope to be a heretic in fact.
This would be more "pernicious for the Church" that to have Jorge Bergoglio destroying millions of souls and causing scandal by teaching heresy? Just because there would be some doubts about the degree of notoriety required to establish heresy and non-papacy? He blends together the occult heretic position, which Bellarmine has as separate, and of course rejects. Bellarmine rejects it not for practical reasons, but because membership in the Church is established in the external forum and is something visible.
So, as I said, for this reason he claims that due to confusion, the Church would need to declare him a heretic. Nowhere does he address the quoad se and quoad nos problems, but is arguing here from purely practical considerations with very little theological content.
-
Bouix then goes on to give his second reason against ipso facto ... practical considerations:
This would be more "pernicious for the Church" that to have Jorge Bergoglio destroying millions of souls and causing scandal by teaching heresy? Just because there would be some doubts about the degree of notoriety required to establish heresy and non-papacy? He blends together the occult heretic position, which Bellarmine has as separate, and of course rejects. Bellarmine rejects it not for practical reasons, but because membership in the Church is established in the external forum and is something visible.
So, as I said, for this reason he claims that due to confusion, the Church would need to declare him a heretic. Nowhere does he address the quoad se and quoad nos problems, but is arguing here from purely practical considerations with very little theological content.
It is one of the primary merits of Cajetan/JST/Billuart's position, that their opinion avoids both these pitfalls:
In rejecting Bouix, the Church is not placed in an inextricable situation in which it has no recourse. To admit such a situation could transpire (especially were it to carry on indefinitely over generations) comes very close to an implicit denial that "the gates of hell shall not prevail."
And in differing with St. Robert, their opinion avoids the practical evils mentioned by Bouix above.
Here's an interesting presentation of it: https://dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-1-of-2/
Here's Part 2: https://dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/
And yet, in practice, even Cajetan/JST/Billuart's position cannot save the Church, since as Avrille concludes:
"The text of John of St. Thomas develops this second point: the need for a judgment of the Church for the deposition of a heretical pope. But at the same time, it shows the difficulty of such a judgment in the present circuмstances of the Church. Indeed, it is easy to see that the vast majority of bishops share the Pope’s ideas about false ecuмenism, false religious freedom, etc. It is therefore impossible to imagine in the current circuмstances, a judgment of a General Council which would declare the heresy of Pope Francis. Humanly speaking we see the situation is hopeless. We must wait that the Providence, in one way or another, shows the way to overcome this impasse."
Theological argumentation aside, St. Robert's position has the benefit of escaping this impasse, but at a high price (but at a lesser price than maintaining the impasse?).
God knows.
-
It amounts to saying "So what?" to the magisterium, as Lad does, or, saying "So what?" to the theologians as +Schneider does.
Lad does not think the idea of a heretical pope ever entered into the mind of the popes who made the law, therefore to him and other sedes, the law is meaningless, and in order to satisfy one's curiosity and calm their spirit, one must resort to some theological speculations from some of the Fathers which they can agree with so as to remain a trad.
+Schneider rightfully sticks to the law established by popes, disregards theological speculations as being inferior to the magisterium, and remains a conservative NOer.
What else is new?
-
In any case, it is absolutely certain that +Vigano will respond to Schneider's argument, and I can't wait to read it.
:popcorn:
-
I believe that both +Huonder and +Schneider are agents of Jorge Bergoglio with distinct but related missions.
I agree & would add Vigano, Strickland, Burke, the Dubia Cds, and any other Novus Ordo Bps that seem to be opposition to Bar Gog-lio.
-
I agree & would add Vigano, Strickland, Burke, the Dubia Cds, and any other Novus Ordo Bps that seem to be opposition to Bar Gog-lio.
Can you explain to me how a sedevacantist can be considered "controlled" opposition?
-
He seems to change his position like a chameleon
-
He seems to change his position like a chameleon
Can you list a few positions he's changed (and please make sure the nature of the change leads one toward conciliarism -as a control agent would- and not away from it)?
-
Can you list a few positions he's changed (and please make sure the nature of the change leads one toward conciliarism -as a control agent would- and not away from it)?
That's just more nonsense from someone who doesn't follow his writing and is ignorant. +Vigano has been very consistent since he first announced his rejection of Vatican II and the New Mass on June 9, 2020, so over 3 years ago now. He's gradually moved toward holding Bergoglio to be a non-pope, but there were hints that he was going in that direction early on, and the hints became stronger and stronger until now. So there was a bit of a progression there, but not something that would be called a "change".
-
I agree & would add Vigano, Strickland, Burke, the Dubia Cds, and any other Novus Ordo Bps that seem to be opposition to Bar Gog-lio.
+Strickland, +Burke, and the dubia Cardinals are most likely just sincere conservative Novus Ordites, not controlled opposition or gate-keepers. What "gate" are they keeping and what "opposition" are they controlling?
Also not sure what gate +Vigano is keeping, since he's more Trad than SSPX and has recently come out with holding Bergoglio to be a non-pope. One might argue that he's running cover for the pre-Bergoglian V2 papal claimants, except that he's emphatically stated that Bergoglio is just the inevitable result of Vatican II, and he's been denouncing V2 and the NOM for over 3 years now. He's probably moving in his mind toward questioning the legitimacy of all the V2 papal claimants, but probably doesn't think it's relevant or particularly urgent, since the other ones are dead.
+Schneider is playing the role of a textbook gatekeeper and controlled opposition. He pays a lot of lip service to Traditional Catholicism and presents himself as very sympathetic to Trads ... if not a Trad himself ... but then he defends V2, the NOM, and now Bergoglio. His role as such would be clear, to keep Trad, Inc. from moving toward Traditional Catholicism and to keep them corralled in the Conciliar Church. +Huonder's role is clear also, to gradually bring the SSPX fully into the Conciliar Church. Could +Schneider just be sincere? Possibly. But every time that +Vigano makes some statement, they roll out +Schneider to oppose him and to offset the "damage" +Vigano might be doing.
What exactly is +Vigano doing other than tugging on Trad, Inc. to become MORE Traditional ... and even sedevacantist? What's the end game there?
-
So, the biggest red light about +Schneider's latest criticism of +Vigano is his falsely having presented the "Opinion 3" as the teaching of the Church. He's claiming that the Church teaches Opinion 3. He HAS to know this is false. It's one thing to hold the opinion yourself ... which he's entitled to do, since the Church has not condemned it ... and quite another to claim that it's the Church's teaching.
Second red light about +Schneider is that every time +Vigano says something that might cause fence-sitting Trad, Inc. type Catholics to consider moving to Tradition, they roll out +Schneider to do damage control.
Between these two factors, I'm all but convinced that +Schneider is working for Jorge.
I'm also perplexed by the fact that Jorge hasn't disciplined +Schneider or silenced him, when he's said far worse about Jorge than +Strickland ever did. +Huonder has also said negative things about Jorge, but not only has he not been silenced, but he's evidently there at SSPX with Jorge's blessing and approval. One could say the same thing about +Vigano, except I think that the problem there is that if Jorge clamped down on him, the media would recall +Vigano's history with Jorge, which started with his exposing Jorge's protection of the sodomite rapist McCarrick, and people could easily infer that this is Jorge's way of retaliating for that and implying that he's continuing to do damage control for rapists, and Jorge would just generally like to keep the McCarrick situation out of the papers and not have everyone reminded of it.
-
Well I don't have all the answers- I haven't got it all figured out,
but when you control the opposition it seems to me you would want to control the whole spectrum of positions. I think that Vigano's role may be to corral the Sedes with false leadership because that faction is not controlled by Francis. They all seem to take turns in the spot light to control any true Catholic resistance and derail it.
-
I think that Vigano's role may be to corral the Sedes with false leadership because that faction is not controlled by Francis. They all seem to take turns in the spot light to control any true Catholic resistance and derail it.
I don't think that +Vigano is corralling any sedes. Sedes have their own leadership, albeit informal, various +Thuc Bishops, etc. If +Vigano tries to move toward the Conciliar Church, he'd simply leave the sedes behind. Sedes are known to be pretty hard-headed. I'm just not seeing it. Nor have I seen anything that he's done practically to corral anyone ... he hasn't formed any kind of Society, nor a seminary, etc. He's put out various letters that have denounced V2, the NOM, called the Conciliar Church a Masonic Anti-Church, and now holds that Bergoglio is not the pope using similar reasoning to that of Bishop Sanborn. If anything he's moving toward the SVs, and not drawing SVs in the opposite direction.
I could see it perhaps if he were straight Bennyvacantist, where Jorge bad, Benny good or Wojtyla good, Montini good, Roncalli good. But he's criticized all the V2 papal claimants in pretty strong terms and has said that Jorge is just a symptom of the V2 problem. So I'm not seeing that. In fact, I could see him eventually hold all of them to be non-popes ... as he's only 1 or 2 logical steps away now. So, for instance, a Roncalli could be accused of the same vitium consensus that Bergoglio had because he too spoke constantly about transforming the Church.
-
Vigano knows the key to influencing the Sedes (and all the Trads heading that way) is telling them what they want to hear: criticizing V2 & saying Bergoglio is not the pope.
By winning the support & allegiance of Sedes his goal would not be
to lead them back to the Novus Ordo, but divide our side (which he
seems to be doing on Cathinfo) and misdirect, or ? not sure what.
In 3 short yrs. he has been promoted by the Opus Dei media, so he is
part of their plan whatever that is.
-
Nor have I seen anything that he's done practically to corral anyone
The only people he's trying to persuade to change are indulters and novus ordoites - and he's trying to push them away from new-rome back towards Tradition. This is a good thing.
-
Vigano knows the key to influencing the Sedes (and all the Trads heading that way) is telling them what they want to hear: criticizing V2 & saying Bergoglio is not the pope.
According to this reasoning, anyone of orthodox faith would be suspect. That's a vicious circle.
By winning the support & allegiance of Sedes his goal would not be to lead them back to the Novus Ordo, but divide our side (which he seems to be doing on Cathinfo) and misdirect, or ? not sure what.
The sede landscape was already divided on a number if issues, as was Cathinfo. Its a symptom and consequence of the crisis in the Church (i.e., since the shephard has been struck, the sheep are scattered), which long predates the advent of +Vigano.
In 3 short yrs. he has been promoted by the Opus Dei media, so he is part of their plan whatever that is.
Ain't seen anything supporting him from the Opus Dei media since he got cancelled by the Catholic Identity Conference.
Responses in red font, above ^^^
-
Vigano knows the key to influencing the Sedes (and all the Trads heading that way) is telling them what they want to hear: criticizing V2 & saying Bergoglio is not the pope.
By winning the support & allegiance of Sedes his goal would not be
to lead them back to the Novus Ordo, but divide our side (which he
seems to be doing on Cathinfo) and misdirect, or ? not sure what.
In 3 short yrs. he has been promoted by the Opus Dei media, so he is
part of their plan whatever that is.
Sorry, but this is weak and pathetic. Sedes are already divided (see Father Chazal's famous chart). How exactly is he going to further divide sedevacantists? As I said, sedes are not easily influenced. None of them is going to be persuaded of something they don't already hold by +Vigano.
-
Ladislaus, Sean, & Pax Vobis
I respect your positions & comments.
I don't know how all this will play out in the future.
Time will tell. Let's watch & pray.