Posted on 06/16/2004 8:33:58 PM PDT by gbcdoj
Charles Cardinal Journet (b. 1891 d. 1975)
(5) Validity and certitude of election. The election, remarks John of St. Thomas, may be invalid when carried out by persons not qualified, or when, although effected by persons qualified, it suffers from defect of form or falls on an incapable subject, as for example one of unsound mind or unbaptized.
But the peaceful acceptance of the universal Church given to an elect as to a head to whom it submits is an act in which the Church engages herself and her fate. It is therefore an act in itself infallible and is immediately recognizable as such. (Consequently, and mediately, it will appear that all conditions prerequisite to the validity of the election have been fulfilled. )
Acceptance by the Church operates either negatively, when the election is not at once contested; or positively, when the election is first accepted by those present and then gradually by the rest (cf. John of St. Thomas, II-II, qq. 1-7; disp. 2, a. 2, nos. 1, 15, 28, 34, 40; pp. 228 et seq. ).
The Church has the right to elect the Pope, and therefore the right to certain knowledge as to who is elected. As long as any doubt remains and the tacit consent of the universal Church has not yet remedied the possible flaws in the election, there is no Pope, papa dubius, papa nullus. As a matter of fact, remarks John of St. Thomas, in so far as a peaceful and certain election is not apparent, the election is regarded as still going on. And since the Church has full control, not over a Pope certainly elected, but over the election itself, she can take all measures needed to bring it to a conclusion. The Church can therefore judge a Pope to be doubtful. Thus, says John of St. Thomas, the Council of Constance judged three Popes to be doubtful, of whom two were deposed, and the third renounced the pontificate (loc. cit., a. 3, nos. 10-11; vol. VII, p. 254).
To guard against all uncertainties that might affect the election the constitution Vacante Sede Apostolica counsels the elect not to refuse an office which the Lord will help him to fill (no. 86); and it stipulates that as soon as the election is canonically effected the Cardinal Dean shall ask, in the name of the whole College, the consent of the elect (no. 87). "This consent being given—if necessary, after a delay fixed by the prudence of the cardinals and by a majority of voices—the elect is at once the true Pope and possesses in act, and can exercise, the full and absolute jurisdiction over all the world" (no. 88).
(6) Sanctity of the election. These words do not mean that the election of the Pope is always effected with an infallible assistance since there are cases in which the election is invalid or doubtful, and remains therefore in suspense. Nor does it mean that the best man is necessarily chosen.
It means that if the election is validly effected (which, in itself, is always a benefit) even when resulting from intrigues and regrettable interventions (in which case what is sin remains sin before God) we are certain that the Holy Spirit who, overruling the Popes, watches in a special way over His Church, turning to account the bad things they do as well as the good, has not willed, or at least permitted, this election for any but spiritual ends, whose virtue will either be manifest, and sometimes with small delay, in the course of history, or will remain hidden till the revelation of the Last Day. But these are mysteries that faith alone can penetrate.
Many theologians hold that the assistance promised by Jesus to the successors of Peter will not only prevent them from publicly teaching heretical doctrine, but will also prevent them from falling into heresy in their private capacity. If that view is correct the question does not arise. St. Robert Bellarmine, in his De Romano Pontifice (lib. II, cap. xxx), already held this thesis as probable and easy to defend. It was however less widespread in his time than it is today. It has gained ground, largely on account of historical studies which have shown that what was once imputed to certain Popes, such as Vigilius, Liberius, Honorius, as a private heresy, was in fact nothing more than a lack of zeal and of courage in certain difficult moments, to proclaim and especially to define precisely, what the true doctrine was.
Others, such as Cajetan, and John of St. Thomas, whose analysis seems to me more penetrating, 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. And to make this clear they fall back on an explanation of the same nature as those we have used in Excursus IV. They remark on the one hand that in divine law the Church is to be united to the Pope as the body is to the head; and on the other that, by divine law, he who shows himself a heretic is to be avoided after one or two admonitions (Tit. iii. 10). There is therefore an absolute contradiction between the fact of being Pope and the fact of persevering in heresy after one or two admonitions. The Church's action is simply declaratory, it makes it plain that an incorrigible sin of heresy exists; then the authoritative action of God disjoins the Papacy from a subject who, persisting in heresy after admonition, becomes in divine law, inapt to retain it any longer. In virtue therefore of Scripture the Church designates and God deposes. God acts with the Church, says John of St. Thomas, somewhat as a Pope would act who decided to attach indulgences to certain places of pilgrimage, but left it to a subordinate to designate which these places should be (II-II, q. I; disp. 2, a. 3, no. 29, vol. VII, p. 264). The explanation of Cajetan and John of St. Thomas—which, according to them, is also valid, properly applied, as an interpretation of the enactments of the Council of Constance—brings us back in its turn to the case of a subject who becomes in Divine law incapable at a given moment of retaining the papacy. It is also reducible to the loss of the pontificate by default of the subject. This then is the fundamental case and the others are merely variants. In a study in the Revue Thomiste (1900, p. 631, "Lettres de Savonarole aux princes chretiens pour la reunion d'un concile"), P. Hurtaud, O. P., has entered a powerful plea in the case—still open—of the Piagnoni. He makes reference to the explanation of Roman theologians prior to Cajetan, according to which a Pope who fell into heresy would be deposed ipso facto: the Council concerned would have only to put on record the fact of heresy and notify the Church that the Pope involved had forfeited his primacy. Savonarola, he says, regarded Alexander VI as having lost his faith. "The Lord, moved to anger by this intolerable corruption, has, for some time past, allowed the Church to be without a pastor. For I bear witness in the name of God that this Alexander VI is in no way Pope and cannot be. For quite apart from the execrable crime of simony, by which he got possession of the [papal] tiara through a sacrilegious bargaining, and by which every day he puts up to auction and knocks down to the highest bidder ecclesiastical benefices, and quite apart from his other vices—well-known to all—which I will pass over in silence, this I declare in the first place and affirm it with all certitude, that the man is not a Christian, he does not even believe any longer that there is a God; he goes beyond the final limits of infidelity and impiety" (Letter to the Emperor).[1019] Basing our argument on the doctrinal authorities which Cajetan was soon to invoke, we should say that Savonarola wished to collect together the Council, not because, like the Gallicans, he placed a Council above the Pope (the Letters to the Princes are legally and doctrinally unimpeachable), but so that the Council, before which he would prove his accusation, should declare the heresy of Alexander VI in his status as a private individual. P. Hurtaud concludes: "Savonarola's acts and words—and most of his words are acts—should be examined in detail. Each of his words should be carefully weighed and none of the circumstances of his actions should be lost sight of. For the friar is a master of doctrine; he does not only know it but he lives it too. In his conduct nothing is left to chance or the mood of the moment. He has a theological or legal principle as the motive power in each one of his decisions. He should not be judged by general laws, for his guides are principles of an exceptional order—though I do not mean by this that he placed himself above or outside the common law. The rules he invokes are admitted by the best Doctors of the Church; there is nothing exceptional in them save the circumstances which make them lawful, and condition their application."
1019 These were neither new nor isolated accusations. cf Schnitzer, Savonarola, Italian translation by E. Rutili, Milan 1931, vol. ii, p. 303.
(Excerpt) Read more at ewtn.com ...
Viva Christo Rey has claimed here before that the last four Popes were formal heretics - but this is shown to be false.
Take a look at this, will you? I'd appreciate a response that isn't just pictures of the Pope.
On "papa haereticus non est depositus, sed deponendus", Suarez also takes this position, calling it "common". Billuart calls it the "more common" opinion:
According to the more common opinion, the Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquillity 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.)
You cite Innocent III, but the quote I've found from him is: "The faith is necessary for me to such an extent that, having God as my only judge in other sins, I could however be judged by the Church for sins I might commit in matters of faith."
St. Francis de Sales says:
Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, as some say, or declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric (Acts I). When he errs in his private opinion he must be instructed, advised, convinced;
As for St. Liguori, he also said that we should believe the Pope couldn't become a heretic. I've seen Hermann post the cite before - you can ask him for it. St. Robert said the same, although he didn't consider it certain. It isn't just a "hope", but a theological opinion founded on Christ's promises.
As for Felix II, the Catholic Encyclopedia classes him as an Antipope and says he was given the status of a Saint because of confusion with the martyr Felix. St. Liberius never fell from the Pontificate.
As for the "material" "formal" distinction, as far as I am aware this was an innovation of des Lauriers. Furthermore, it contradicts Journet in what he says in (5) of the OP, and what the Catholic Encyclopedia says: "it is a dogma of faith that every pontiff duly elected and recognized by the universal Church is a successor of Peter".
If you could, I'd appreciate if you'd respond to the first section I posted, which says that the acceptance of a Pope by the Church is infallible and demonstrates all conditions for validity. You've claimed in the past that Bl. John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II were all formal heretics before being raised to the pontificate. This disproves that, as far as I can see. The Catholic Encyclopedia and other theologians say the same thing:
Is Pius X, for instance, really and truly Roman Pontiff [1909], duly elected and recognized by the Universal Church? This is connected with dogma, for it is a dogma of faith that every pontiff duly elected and recognized by the universal Church is a successor of Peter. ("Dogmatic Facts").
I'm not kidding either. There are a certain few in here (at least you're not alone) whose focus is incessantly directed at traditionalist posters, worshipers and sympathizers. I've come to believe that they either have mental problems or are just trouble making trolls, or maybe both.
Post something that isn't geared toward your anti-trad jihad, just so I know you have a life and can talk about something else. Humor me.
Bless you sir.
I mean that too. Not the annoyance part, but the blessing part. :)
Muchas gracias, amigo.
Once again, documentation demonstrates that the Church is EMINENTLY the Church of Common Sense.
Unfortunately, you will not persuade Viva (among others) of the liceity of JPII's reign and decisions. It matters not if you bring all of the Fathers and all of the Canon Law to bear.
The holy jihad against the schismatics is perfectly acceptable, insofar as schism is only a micron away from apostasy.
It is the duty of the Christian to warn, cajole, and argue forcefully with those who would separate themselves from the Church and, consequently, endanger their soul's salvation.
I would think you owe GBC a massive debt of gratitude for his well-thought-out and extraordinary research postings. I certainly do.
"The holy jihad against the schismatics is perfectly acceptable, insofar as schism is only a micron away from apostasy."
Fitting you would resort to a Muslim term that Islamist maniacs use when they engage in their peculiar form madness.
At least you're admitting you're jihadists, it's been apparant for quite some time.
From my experience, AAABEST tends to be not one of "those" whom you are describing.
Yeah, that last part was uncharitable, and that's why I used the word "tends."
**There are a certain few in here (at least you're not alone) whose focus is incessantly directed at non-traditionalist posters, worshipers and sympathizers.**
Wholeheared agreement!
To be fair to sandy there are some traditionalist here and elsewhere that I'm not proud of. I've told her that before. Heck I'm not proud of myself at times, being that I'm in a near constant state of sin here and elsewhere.
This being said, I certainly do NOT see the same focused fervor from traditionalists as I see coming from these anti-trad squads. It truly is pathological to be so obsessively perturbed by folks who worship Jesus in the fashion that has been done for centuries. They contend that it's because of their concern for our well being but that's nonsense and everyone knows it.
This is the same quirky mania that caused the modernist deconstrcutors to literally decimate our music, catechism and liturgy (among everything else they've destroyed).
What's worse is that many of them are far more upset with tradition than they are with homosexuality, modernism, heresy, loss of faith, the clergy crisis, wayward youth and the plethera of other hardships we're experiencing in our "springtime".
It doesn't make any sense and I honestly don't understand the bug-eyed determination that the hardcore anti-trads share.
I realize I'm dreaming here - to the point of being comical - but as long as others are behaving in a reverent and orthodox fashion don't we have far more numerous and severe problems to address (such as irreverence and unorthodoxy)?
Perhaps I can regain your good graces, although I don't really care...
I would be happy to execute (that means kill) Bishops who have molested children, or those who have knowingly and willingly conspired to cover (that would be obstruction of justice) for their priests who have done same.
However, I think that schismatics do not deserve execution. They should be forced, by whatever means, to confess that Peter is the head of the Church, and swear loyalty, OBEDIENCE, and fealty to him.
Of course, if they can't do that, then they are not to be preserved from the fate of the Bishops (above.)
Fair trials for all, first, of course. Torquemada shall be our model in all these things.
I know I can take this advice, for the most part, but I know there are others who simply can abide to do so, for varying reasons.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.