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

Author Topic: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine  (Read 4561 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2351
  • Reputation: +882/-146
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
« Reply #60 on: October 27, 2019, 11:00:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Yeah, I know it's a law, but ...   as often is the case with laws, it's merely a concrete expression of some theological principle.

    Here we have a "law" that overrules Universal Acceptance?  Popes cannot be deposed by force of law.  To me this is more a statement of principle, that a heretic cannot be a pope.
    Yep. You got it Lad.
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #61 on: October 27, 2019, 01:10:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The theologians who wrote about universal acceptance did so well after cuм ex was promulgated.

    They would have had all that in mind when they were writing.

    It is a reasonable conclusion, therefore, to say that cuм ex does not trump the universal consent (i.e., If it did, Billot et al coul not have made the universal consent argument).

    PS: It was not I who down-thumbed Lad and Decem R.
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."


    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2351
    • Reputation: +882/-146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #62 on: October 27, 2019, 05:24:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The theologians who wrote about universal acceptance did so well after cuм ex was promulgated.

    They would have had all that in mind when they were writing.

    It is a reasonable conclusion, therefore, to say that cuм ex does not trump the universal consent (i.e., If it did, Billot et al coul not have made the universal consent argument).

    PS: It was not I who down-thumbed Lad and Decem R.
    I never said it was “unreasonable.”

    If V2 has taught me anything, it has taught me to distrust the theologians and an argument from a tacit acceptance of what they say. I’ve mentioned this on another thread: someone name me a clerical “theologian” (I mean Traditional, Sede, R & R or Resistance) who asserts plainly and without quibbling that one must have explicit faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation to be saved.  I can’t think of one; in fact, I believe they to a man allow for “implicit faith” for those in other religions who are “inculpable” and “invincibly innocent.” Doe that “universal” “consensus”  of these living theologians indicate it is now de fide that such explicit faith in the Son of God is not necessary?

    Anyway, I don’t condemn your view . . . you can keep it, and have it. I merely say Paul IV is expressing a matter of divine law and knew what he was talking about. I side with him and find him by virtue of his office and grace a more reliable authority.
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13160
    • Reputation: +8288/-2565
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #63 on: October 27, 2019, 05:35:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Even if the Novus Ordo is intrinsically evil, receiving Holy Communion could represent a material, rather than formal, participation in the evil.  Material participation in evil can be permitted based on various circuмstances.  So, in a grave situation, such as danger of death, I do not see how it would be illicit to receive a doubtfully-valid Holy Communion that resulted from a Novus Ordo consecration.
    It would be illicit to receive a doubtful communion because canon law says it's illicit.  Secondly, +ABL and +W aren't allowing the novus ordo ONLY "in danger of death", and neither is Sean.  They are condoning attendance for normal situations, for normal catholics.  What are the parameters for such attendance?  It's very hazy.  Validity seems to be the litmus test, as validity = grace.  All other evil circuмstances are ignored (illicitness and immoral/sacrilegious behavior).

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #64 on: October 27, 2019, 05:44:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It would be illicit to receive a doubtful communion because canon law says it's illicit.  Secondly, +ABL and +W aren't allowing the novus ordo ONLY "in danger of death", and neither is Sean.  They are condoning attendance for normal situations, for normal catholics.  What are the parameters for such attendance?  It's very hazy.  Validity seems to be the litmus test, as validity = grace.  All other evil circuмstances are ignored (illicitness and immoral/sacrilegious behavior).

    More inaccuracies from you, but I lost patience some time ago.

    Pax Vobis believes adultery is permissible.
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."


    Offline Conspiracy_Factist

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 598
    • Reputation: +157/-19
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #65 on: October 27, 2019, 06:24:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • cuм ex was partly abrogated with the promulgation of the 1917 CIC.
    In its provision on loss of ecclesiastical office without declaration (canon 188.4), the 1917 Code of Canon Law quotes this bull for its teaching on loss of office through heresy.  This demonstrates that the Code’s teaching on loss of office without a declaration through heresy (and a Catholic’s ability to recognize it) is in accord with this bull.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13160
    • Reputation: +8288/-2565
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #66 on: October 27, 2019, 06:32:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    Pax Vobis believes adultery is permissible.

    Sean resorts to posting gibberish because he can't defend his position.

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2246
    • Reputation: +1485/-605
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #67 on: October 29, 2019, 10:25:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Clemens Maria, do you believe there is a Catholic Hierarchy today with Ordinary Jurisdiction? Ecclesia-vacantism is the denial of that. The Dimonds are ecclesia-vacantists. Even they don't deny there are a few episcopi vagantes here and there, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopus_vagans but valid Bishops alone are not enough. You need Papal Appointment to Office. Otherwise, Ordinary Jurisdiction cannot be transmitted.

    As for the Cardinals/Roman Clergy, what is needed is incardination into the Roman Church. For that too, a Roman Pontiff is needed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incardination_and_excardination

    Your claim about me is incorrect. All the Popes from John XXIII to Benedict XVI who lived and died/resigned as universally accepted Popes are certainly Popes and will always be such. The Church has already ruled on their status infallibly by accepting not only their election as Popes, but also their death as Popes. Pope Francis' election was certainly valid. But Pope Francis may lose the pontificate at some point in the future, provided he proves manifestly obstinate after one or two admonitions from the Cardinals and Bishops. I didn't say Pope Francis has already lost his office, nor even that he would necessarily do so in the future. Reread my post carefully please, and don't impute to me something I didn't say. I only outlined the canonical process by which both (1) the fact of the heresy itself, as opposed to a lesser theological error, and (2) the fact of public pertinacity, as opposed to being ready to be corrected by the Church, must be established by the Bishops and the Cardinals.

    61 year SVism hasn't taken of in 61 years. It's unlikely it'll take off even in the next 61. The scholars who wrote the letter believe all the Cardinals are real Cardinals and all the Ordinaries appointed by Pope Francis and his 5 predecessors are real Ordinaries. That's the advantage they have.
    Please cite your sources.  If you can give me even one Catholic source for the idea that there must be at least one living ordinary at every moment of time, then I will concede.  But I've had this argument with dozens of people and so far not one source has ever been produced.  61-year heretical hierarchy with no end in sight is contrary to the teaching of all the theologians.  Gallicanism is condemned.  Your idea that you can resist a legitimate Successor of Peter is condemned.  If you read the theological manuals carefully, you will see that a 61-year systematic r&r scenario is not possible.  Whereas a 61-year sede vacante has never been denied or condemned by any theologians.  Of course, you could always just go novus ordo conservative and then I would see that at least on the authority of the pope you are consistent but then I would stop calling you Catholic.  I'd rather you stay Catholic but really you should also be consistent in your treatment of papal authority.