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 ...
Wow, you sound serious about that. Talk about militant...
You've given us a few gems, but this one stands on its own. I implore everyone to either to save this thread, or print that out and hold it under the light... and just stare at it.
You two in this "club" sound as if you have substance abuse problems.
Correct, declare him deprived, that he fell from the papacy by his own act and can thus NOW be judged because as pope, he can be judged by no other man as there is none who is his superior.
Saint Francis de Sales, Doctor of the Church:
"En l'ancienne loy le grand pretre ne portait pas le rational si non quand il estoit revestu des habits pontificaux et qu'il entroit devant le Seigneur. Ainsi ne disons nous pas que le pape en ses opinions particulieres ne puisse errer comme fit Jean XXII, ou etre du tout heretique comme peut etre fut Honorius. Or quand il est heretique expres *ipso facto* il tombe de son grade hors de l'Eglise et l'Eglise le doit ou priver comme disent quelques uns, ou le declarer prive de son siege apostolique et dire comme fit St. Pierre: Episcopatum eius accipiat alter. Quand il erre en sa particuliere opinion il le faut enseigner, adviser, convaincre comme on fit a Jean XXII le quel tant s'en faut qu'il mourut opiniatre ou que pendant sa vie il determina aucune chose touchant son opinion, que pendant qu'il faysoit l'inquisition requise pour determiner en matiere de foy, il mourut, au recit de son successeur en l'Extravagante qui se commence *Benedictus Deus.*"
St. Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversy (Tan Books), p. 388 (part II, art. VI, ch. 14)
"Under the ancient law the High Priest did not wear the Rational except when he was vested in the pontifical robes and was entering before the Lord. Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. 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 happened with John XXII, who was so far from dying obstinate or from determining anything during his life concerning his opinion, that he died whilest he was making the examination which is necessary for determining in a matter of faith, as his successor declared in the *Extravagantes* which begins Benedictus Deus." (Ib. p. 305-306)
Confer further with Bellermine's De Romano Pontice II, 29, 7 - starting at the very beginning of the question: "Since one is permitted to......."
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.
For Saint Robert it was just a pious hope, otherwise why go to such effort to formulate the effects of the outcome of manifest papal heresy.
Saint Robert Bellermine, Doctor of the Church:
"Est ergo quinta opinio vera, papam haereticum manifestum per se desinere esse papam et caput, sicut per se desinit esse christianus et membrum corporis Ecclesiae; quare ab, Ecclesia posse eum judicari et puniri. Haec est sententia omnium veterum Patrum, qui docent, haereticos manifestos mox amittere omnem jurisdictionem."
"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."
As for Saint Alphonsus de Ligupori, Doctor of the Church:
"Del resto, si Dio permettesse che un papa fosse notoriamente eretico e contumace, egli cesserebbe d'essere papa, e vacherebbe il pontificato."
--"Verita della Fede", part 3, ch. 8, no. 10. In: Opere dommatiche di S. Alfonso de Liguori (Torino, G. Marietti, 1848), p. 720. (Opere di S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori, v. 8)
"For the rest, if God should permit that a Pope should become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would cease to be Pope, and the pontificate would be vacant."
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.
And when Pope Saint Pius X was presented with the set, he dashed it to the floor in disgust.
The 1907-1913 Catholic Encyclopedia is better than more recent works, but that in no way means it is any good. It is a fourth hand source - at best - versus a Doctor of the Church, Saint Robert Bellermine, whose work was gone over with a fine tooth comb, FOR ANY errors, otherwise he would never have been declared a Doctor.
The more one browses through the C.E., the more errors become apparent, especially with the Heresy of Modernism. Pope Saint Pius X remarked sadly at that time, "the enemy is now within".
As just one illustration of this please confer thehatchet job done onpoor Saint Philomena by the 'progressive scientific minds' of that era who no longer believed in anything miraculous - let alone pure and innocent.
That is versus three or four popes in the previous 100 years who had directly affirmed Saint Philomena.
One always goes with weight and doctrinal authority, and Pope Innocent III and four Doctors of the Church, along with 100 other assorted theologians are not to be ignored in favor of a bloke who was given the job of writing an article in an encyclopedia.
In any case Liberius and Pope Saint Felix II are dealth with by Saint Robert Bellermine as follows:
De Romano Pontifice, Liber IV, Caput IX, No. 5:
"In addition, unless we are to admit that Liberius defected for a time from constancy in defending the Faith, we are compelled to exclude Felix II, who held the pontificate while Liberius was alive, from the number of the Popes: but the Catholic Church venerates this very Felix as Pope and martyr. However this may be, Liberius neither taught heresy, nor was a heretic, but only sinned by external act [emphasis in original Latin], as did St. Marcellinus, and unless I am mistaken, sinned less than St. Marcellinus." (lib. IV, c. 9, no. 5)
"Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic."
As for the differences in the citations of Pope Innocent III, it is not your fault as there a lot of instances of bogus citations that keep replicating ad infinitum. The correct quotation is as follows:
Pope Innocent III (1198), Sermo 4:
"The Roman Pontiff has no superior but God. Who, therefore, could cast him out or trample him under foot – since of the pope it is said ‘gather thy flock into thy fold’? Truly, he should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God.
"Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory [Minus dico] because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged.
"In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men'."
As for Suarez, if the citation is accurate at all, he is trumped by the
Angelic Doctor of the Church, Saint Thomas Aquinas:
St. Thomas Aquinas on loss of jurisdiction by heretics:
Summa, 2a 2ae, q. 39, art. 3. (Utrum schismatici habeant aliquam potestatem)
"...Potestas autem iurisdictionis est quae ex simplici iniunctione hominis confertur; et talis potestas non immobiliter adhaeret; unde in schismaticis et haereticis non manet; unde non possunt nec absolvere, nec excommunicare, nec indulgentias facere, aut aliquid huiusmodi; quod si fecerint, nihil est actum."
(Whether schismatics have any power.)
"...The power of jurisdiction, however [as opposed to the power of Orders, which he has just discussed], is that [power] which is conferred simply by the injunction of man; and this power does not adhere immovably; therefore it does not remain in schismatics and heretics. Hence they can neither absolve, nor excommunicate, nor grant indulgences, or anything of this sort. If they do this, the act is null."
For a practical application, there is Saint Robert Bellrmine's citation in De Romano Pontifice of Pope Saint Celestine I' declaration that no penalties bestowed by the heretic Nestorius upon the true Catholics who withdrew from him as Patriarch need to be lifted, because Nestorius had no power due to the fact that he had fallen from office BY HIS OWN ACT: Saint Robert Bellermine, Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice, Liber II, Caput 30, quoting Pope Saint Celestine I:
"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.' "
As for the more recent 'cardinal' Kasper quotation, it was his usual recitation that the early Christians accepted the Resurrection at face value and that no critical inquiry was thus done to ascertain that it had actually taken place. He then makes the statement: "We must re-examine the historicity of the resurrection."
Note he does not state that it never occurred, he just despicably plunges a dagger through its heart, by so disparaging a DOGMA OF THE FAITH, that none but a fellow traveler can be in any doubt as to his true intent.
This is the same technique used by the entire despciable crowd, e.g. Malachi Martin in the preface to his 1973 book, "Jesus Now", in which he quotes every possible type of filth, blasphemy and perversion BY OTHERS against the Most Holy Name of Our Savior, thus pretending to lift the culpability from his own soul, and then procedes with the premise of his book that that is why man should create a new Christ in man's own image because no one believes in the mythic Christ.
Fine, Pope Paul IV, defining as a matter of faith and not as mere discipline, the question of a amnifest heretic who would be elected pope, although matters of discpline and sanctions such as those on the false popes supporters are contained therein - these are mutable.
The items in this Bull touching the Faith belong to the infallible Ordinary Magisterium of the Church and are not subject to mitigation, abrogation, abrogation, etc.
It is not my problem if the references you site 'got it wrong'. This is an infallible declaration, binding the entire Church, touching on matters of faith.
CUM EX APOSTOLATUS OFFICIO, APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL IV, 15TH FEBUARY 1559, (ROMAN BULLARIUM VOL. IV. SEC. I, PP. 354-357)
6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-]
that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power, without any exception in respect of those to which they may have been promoted or elevated before they deviated from the Faith, became heretics, incurred schism, or provoked or committed any or all of these.
"Et hoc secundo modo posset Papa esse schismaticus, si nollet tenere cum toto Ecclesiae corpore unionem et coniunctionem quam debet, ut si tentat et totem Ecclesiam excommunicare, aut si vellet omnes Ecclesiasticas caeremonias apostolica traditione firmatas evertere. (De Charitate, Disputatio XII de Schismate, sectio 1)
"And in this second way the Pope could be schismatic, if he were unwilling to be in normal union with the whole body of the Church, as would occur if he attempted to excommunicate the whole Church, or, as both Cajetan and Torquemada observe, if he wished to overturn the rites of the Church based on Apostolic Tradition."
"It has always been maintained by Catholic theologians that for heresy the Church may judge the Pope, because, as most maintain, by heresy he ceases to be Pope. There is no variance on this head amongst theologians that I know of, except that some, with Turrecremata and Bellarmine, hold that by heresy he ipso facto ceases to be Pope: whilst others, with Cajetan and John of St. Thomas, maintain that he would not formally [as opposed to materially] cease to be Pope until he was formally deposed.
"The privilege of infallible teaching belongs only to an undoubted Pope; and on the claims of a doubtful, disputed Pope the Church has the right of judging. No single example can be produced of a Pope whose orthodoxy and succession was undoubted upon whom the Church pretended to sit in judgment.... During a contested Papacy the state of things approximates to that of an interregnum. The exercise of active infallability is suspended."
(Catholic Controversy, 6th ed., Burns & Oates, pp. 30-31)
THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA (1907), Vol. VII, p. 261
"It has been a common teaching of theologians that a validly elected pope can fall into heresy and so vacate the See of Peter by automatic tacit resignation."
"Not a few canonists teach that, outside of death and abdication, the pontifical dignity can also be lost by falling into certain insanity, which is legally equivalent to death, as well as through manifest and notorious heresy. In the latter case, a pope would automatically fall from his power, and this indeed without the issuance of any sentence, for the first See [the Apostolic See] is judged by no one.... The reason is that, by falling into heresy, the pope ceases to be a member of the church. He who is not a member of a society, obviously, cannot be its head.
(Introductio in Codicem, 1946, Canon 221)
"Neque enim Petri successoribus Spiritus sanctus promissus est, ut eo revelante novam doctrinam patefacerent, sed ut eo assistente traditam per apostolos revelationem seu fidei depositum sancte custodirent et fideliter exponerent.
(Constitutio Dogmatica Prima de Ecclesia Christi [Pastor Aeternus], cap. 4, "De Romani Pontificis Infallibili Magisterio")
"For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles."
"By teaching that superiors should not refuse to be reprehended by inferiors, St. Peter gave posterity an example more rare and holier than that of St. Paul as he taught that in the defense of truth and with charity, inferiors may have the audacity to resist superiors without fear."
(Epistula 19 ad Hieronymum)
"What then should a Catholic do if some part of the Church were to separate itself from communion with the universal Faith? What other choice can he make but to prefer to the gangrenous and corrupted member the whole of the body that is sound. And if some new contagion were to try to poison no longer a small part of the Church, but all of the Church at the same time, then he will take the greatest care to attach himself to antiquity which, obviously, can no longer be seduced by any lying novelty."
(Commonitorium)
Papal Coronation Oath, to be taken by all Roman pontiffs, showing that no Roman pontiff has the authority to contradict the Deposit of Faith, or to change or innovate upon what has been handed by to him by Sacred Tradition and his predecessors:
(This oath was taken by ALL popes and antipopes from that time until Karol Wojtyla, 'John Paul II', refused to take it. Hmmm, wonder why......)
PAPAL CORONATION OATH
"I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;
"To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort;
"To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear;
"To guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the Divine ordinances of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to the severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess;
"I swear to God Almighty and the Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared.
"I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I.
"If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice.
"Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone -- be it ourselves or be it another -- who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the Orthodox Faith and the Christian Religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture."
(Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum, Patrologia Latina 1005, S. 54)
You've been spammed.
"Those therefore who after the manner of wicked heretics dare to set aside ecclesiastical traditions, and to invent any kind of novelty, or to reject any of those things entrusted to the Church, or who wrongfully and outrageously devise the destruction of any of those traditions enshrined in the Catholic Church, are to be punished thus: if they are bishops, we order them to be deposed...."
"Hold firmly that you faith is identical with that of the ancients. Deny this, and you dissolve the unity of the Church."
"There being an imminent danger for the Faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was a subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Glossa of St. Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2.14), 'St. Peter himself gave the example to those who govern so that if sometime they stray from the right way, they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from their subjects....'
"The reprehension was just and useful, and the reason for it was not light: there was a danger for the preservation of Gospel truth.... The way it took place was appropriate, since it was public and manifest. For this reason, St. Paul writes: 'I spoke to Cephas,' that is, Peter, 'before everyone,' since the simulation practiced by St. Peter was fraught with danger to everyone.
(Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 33, A. 4)
"Some say that fraternal corrrection does not extend to the prelates either because man should not raise his voice against heaven, or because the prelates are easily scandalized if corrected by their subjects. However, this does not happen, since when they sin, the prelates do not represent heaven, and, therefore, must be corrected. And those who correct them charitably do not raise their voices against them, but in their favor, since the admonishment is for their own sake.... For this reason, according to other [authors], the precept of fraternal correction extends also to the prelates, so that they may be corrected by their subjects."
(IV Sententiarum, D. 19, Q. 2, A. 2)
What some of us are perturbed about is the pathological obsessiveness of certain trads (not all) to continually put up threads by the reprehensible Christopher Ferrara, or Michael Matt, or Thomas Drolesky that trash the Pope and the Novus Ordo. In fact, none of these three men can write a word that's not a bash of the post-Vatican II Church.
If you want peace, stick to your knitting. Promote the Tridentine Mass. Stop putting up threads (as Land of the Irish and AskStPhilomena are won't to do) about the Pope only to lampoon him.
Some of the more strident on your side think it's cool to post pictures of the Pope kissing the Koran (if I never see that image again it will be too soon) or of clown Masses (as you have done in the past). Nobody has approved those actions, including me, your resident liberal.
So stop posting them. Just stop.
If the only way you can build up your case for traditionalism is to tear down the Novus Ordo, you have a very weak case.
"Most Holy Father,... because He [Christ] has given you authority and because you have accepted it, you ought to use your virtue and power. If you do not wish to use it, it might be better for you to resign what you have accepted; it would give more honor to God and health to your soul.... If you do not do this, you will be censured by God. If I were you, I would fear that Divine Judgment might descend on me.
(Letter to Pope Gregory XI)
"Alas, Most Holy Father! At times obedience to you leads to eternal damnation.
(Letter to Pope Gregory XI, 1376.)
"By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity of the Church is dependent upon its relationship with Christ. The Pope can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ, or by commanding something that is against the divine or natural law. by doing so, the Pope separates himself from the body of the Church because this body is itself linked to Christ by obedience. In this way, the Pope would, without doubt, fall into schism....
"He would do that if he did not observe that which the Universal Church observes in basing herself on the Tradition of the Apostles, or if he did not observe that which has been ordained for the whole world by the universal councils or by the authority of the Apostolic See. Especially is this true with regard to the divine liturgy, as, for example, if he did not wish personally to follow the universal customs and rites of the Church. This same holds true for other aspects of the liturgy in a very general fashion, as would be the case of one unwilling to celebrate with priestly vestments, or in consecrated places, or with candles, or if he refused to make the sign of the cross as other priests do, or other similar things which, in a general way, relate to perpetual usage in conformity with the Canons.
"By thus separating himself apart, and with obstinacy, from the observance of the universal customs and rites of the Church, the Pope could fall into schism. The conclusion is sound and the premises are not in doubt, since just as the Pope can fall into heresy, so also he can disobey and transgress with obstinacy that which has been established for the common order of the Church. Thus it is that [Pope] Innocent [III] states (De Consuetudine) that it is necessary to obey a Pope in all things as long as he does not himself go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the church, he ought not to be obeyed...."
(Summa de Ecclesia [1489])
"In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.
"A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church."
(Summa Theologica)
GIROLAMO SAVONAROLA, O.P. (1452-1498)
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.... This I declare in the first place and affirm it with all certitutde, 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)
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.