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 ...
FRANCISCO DE VICTORIA, O.P. (1480?-1546), THEOLOGIAN
"Consequently, if he [the pope] wished to give away the whole treasure of the Church or the Patrimony of St. Peter to his relatives, if he wanted to destroy the Church or the like, he should not be permitted to act in that fashion, but one would be obliged to resist him. The reason for this is that he does not possess power in order to destroy; therefore, if there is evidence that he is doing it, it is lawful to resist him. The result of all this is that if the pope destroys the Church by his orders and acts, he can be resisted and the execution of his mandates prevented.
"Second proof of the thesis. By Natural Law it is lawful to repel violence with violence. Now then, with such orders and dispensations the pope exerts violence, since he acts against the Law, as we have proven. Therefore, it is lawful to resist him."
(Dialogus de Potestate Papae [1517], para. 4)
"Finally, one cannot consider as schismatics those who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person suspect or, because of widespread rumors, doubtfully elected (as happened after the election of Urban VI), or who would resist him as a civil authority and not as pastor of the Church."
(Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum [Rome: Gregorian University, 1937], Vol. VII, p.
Thanks for spurring me on (and you said my posts weren't bothering you, that you didn't even read them).
I am not comfortable with the fashion as to which this is done at times either and agree that it doesn't promote harmony.
As you know, as distasteful as the NO-mass is to me, I fully support it for those who wouldn't be in church otherwise. In other words I'd rather see a NO-mass than no mass at all. However, clown masses and diocese like the three ring circuses going on in LA, Albany and Cincinnati (to name a just a few) need to be trashed. Trashed as in thrown in the dumpster of history as a sad chapter in the history of our church.
Some of the more strident on your side think it's cool to post pictures of the Pope kissing the Koran...
While troubling, I personally don't find these silly symbolic things JP has does (on a consistent basis) nearly as upsetting as some of the substantive things he's done. Him standing next to a native lady with her boobs hanging out is not nearly as bad as what he's allowed to happen to our catechism and issues like scaling back fasting in 1983. I'm surprised we don't very often discuss the changes to canon in '83 on this forum. IMO that was nearly as much a disaster as 1969.
What you may not understand is that while most of us love and pray for John Paul as our pope, some feel that he has a hand in much of the damage that has been done to our church - wittingly or unwittingly. In the very least he hasn't done much at all about the damage, at the very most he's directly responsible for much of it.
This is why you witness the indignation that boils over. I agree with you that it gets uglier than it needs to and some here engage in bad behavior, but at times it's justified and things need to be said.
There's a time for everything.
You are the nattering nabob of negativity on this website.
There's no competition even close.
Rev. Edmund James O'Reilly S.J., The Relations of the Church to Society - Theological Essays, 1882
page 33:
"If we inquire how ecclesiastical jurisdiction...has been continued, the answer is that...it in part came and comes immediately from God on the fulfilment of certain conditions regarding the persons. Priests having jurisdiction derive it from bishops or the pope. The pope has it immediately from God, on his legitimate election. The legitimacy of his election depends on the observance of the rules established by previous popes regarding such election."
Thus, if papal jurisdiction depends on a person's legitimate election, which certainly is not verified in the case of the purported election of a formal heretic to the Chair of Peter, it follows that, in the absence of legitimate election, no jurisdiction whatever is granted, neither "de jure" nor, despite what some have tried to maintain, "de facto".
p. 287
"The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be.Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfil His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one's service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree."
Commentary on the 1983 Code of Canon Law:
"Classical canonists discussed the question of whether a pope, in his private or personal opinions, could go into heresy, apostasy, or schism. If he were to do so in a notoriously and widely publicised manner, he would break communion, and according to an accepted opinion, lose his office ipso facto. (c.194 §1,2o). Since no one can judge the pope (c.1404), no one could depose a pope for such crimes, and the authors are divided as to how his loss of office would be declared in such a way that a vacancy could then be filled by a new election."
[Corridan et al. editors, The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, Canon Law Society of America, c.333.]
You've said this before--that Kasper does not deny the historicity of the Resurrection--and you use as a proof a BOOK REVIEW by Avery Dulles which does not go into any specifics on the issue whatsoever. Brian Harrison's article, on the other hand, QUOTES Kasper at length and provides footnotes to his text. He argues against Kasper's position--a disbelief in the possibility of the Gospel miracles--in some detail. You need to be more honest about this. Either prove Harrison is wrong to cite Kasper or admit you are wrong. My own view is Harrison's scholarship has always been sound. He is too well-respected to be summarily dismissed by citing a book review.
The fact remains that JPII was shockingly irresponsible to have elevated Kasper, given the man's intellectual history--and his action shows a callous indifference to the destructive consequences of such papal action. Kasper's own radical statements on ecumenical matters while wearing his red hat fully bear out his heterodoxy--yet it apparently makes little difference to the Pope who neither explains his choice nor opposes the cardinal's radicalism. JPII has pursued policies, in fact, which are in open opposition to the teachings of the preconciliar Church regarding syncretism and indifferentism. Whether or not he is ever perceived as a formal heretic, nothing can erase the scandalous fact that he has opposed the teachings of his own Church. JPII may still be a perfectly valid pope--but he is a bad one.
"III. Appointment to the office of the Primacy [i.e. papacy]. 1o What is required by divine law for this appointment: (a) The person appointed must be a man who possesses the use of reason, due to the ordination the Primate must receive to possess the power of Holy Orders. This is required for the validity of the appointment.
Also required for validity is that the man appointed be a member of the Church. Heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are therefore excluded."...
2o Loss of office of the Roman Pontiff. This can occur in various ways:....
c) Notorious heresy. Certain authors deny the supposition that the Roman Pontiff can become a heretic. It cannot be proven however that the Roman Pontiff, as a private teacher, cannot become a heretic - if, for example, he would contumaciously deny a previously defined dogma. Such impeccability was never promised by God. Indeed, Pope Innocent III expressly admits such a case is possible.
If indeed such a situation would happen, he [the Roman Pontiff] would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed without a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority."
Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Rome: Marietti 1:312,316. My emphasis.
What faith is gbcdoj defending--Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu, animist?
Serapius Iragui (1959)
Theologians respond the same way. We cannot prove the absolute impossibility of such an event [absolutam repugnatiam facti]. For this reason, theologians commonly concede that the Roman Pontiff, if he should fall into manifest heresy, would no longer be a member of the Church, and therefore could neither be called its visible head."
Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae. Madrid: Ediciones Studium 1959. 371.
"The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church."
Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Encyclopedia Press 1913. 7:261.
"c) The law now in force for the election of the Roman Pontiff is reduced to these points:.... Barred as incapable of being validly elected are the following: women, children who have not reached the age of reason, those suffering from habitual insanity, the unbaptised, heretics and schismatics....,
Cessation of pontifical power. This power ceases:.... (d) Through notorious and openly divulged heresy. A publicly heretical pope would no longer be a member of the Church; for this reason, he could no longer be its head."
Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Florence: Fiorentina 1921. 160, 165. His emphasis.
"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."
What a crock. Nobody owes blind obedience to any man on earth, not even a pope. Popes are not without malice. They can give evil commands--which SHOULD be disobeyed. People like you can't tell the difference between a pope and God Himself--that is idolatry.
That said, you have claimed SSPX is schismatic. You say this over and over. Yet they have always done what you claim you want schismatics to do, with the sole exception being their having refused to be complicit in the destruction of Catholic Tradition. But they have always acknowledged the Pope as pope--nor is disobedience per se schismatic.
"The power of the Roman Pontiff is lost:....(c) By his perpetual insanity or by formal heresy.
And this at least probably....
The authors indeed commonly teach that a pope loses his power through certain and notorious heresy, but whether this case is really possible is rightly doubted. Based on the supposition, however, that a pope could fall into heresy, as a private person (for as pope he could not err in faith, because he would be infallible), various authors have worked out different answers as to how he could then be deprived of his power. None of the answers, nevertheless, exceed the limits of probability."
Manuale Iuris Canonici. Freiburg im Briesgau: Herder 1927. 95.
His emphasis.
I think you're still missing the point. Paul IV never says that it would be possible for obedience of all to be given to a heretical Pontiff.
The point here is that such a thing would be impossible - that the obedience of the Church unanimously given to John Paul II after his election infallibly proves that, as Cardinal Journet says, "all conditions prerequisite to the validity of the election have been fulfilled." - including that the elected Cardinal has NOT "deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy".
If the universal Church were to accept the election of a non-Catholic as Pontiff, she would have erred and defected.
" The power of the Roman Pontiff ceases by death, free resignation (which is valid without need for any acceptance, c.221), certain and unquestionably perpetual insanity and notorious heresy. At least according to the more common teaching, the Roman Pontiff as a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any declaratory sentence (for the supreme See is judged by no one), he would automatically [ipso facto] fall from a power which he who is no longer a member of the Church is unable to possess."
Epitome Iuris Canonici. Rome: Dessain 1949. 340.
Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem:
Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternam peribit.
Fides autem catholica haec est: ut unum Deum in Trinitate, et Trinitatem in unitate veneremur.
Neque confundentes personas, neque substantiam seperantes.
Alia est enim persona Patris alia Filii, alia Spiritus Sancti:
Sed Patris, et Fili, et Spiritus Sancti una est divinitas, aequalis gloria, coeterna maiestas.
Qualis Pater, talis Filius, talis Spiritus Sanctus.
Increatus Pater, increatus Filius, increatus Spiritus Sanctus.
Immensus Pater, immensus Filius, immensus Spiritus Sanctus.
Aeternus Pater, aeternus Filius, aeternus Spiritus Sanctus.
Et tamen non tres aeterni, sed unus aeternus.
Sicut non tres increati, nec tres immensi, sed unus increatus, et unus immensus.
Similiter omnipotens Pater, omnipotens Filius, omnipotens Spiritus Sanctus.
Et tamen non tres omnipotentes, sed unus omnipotens.
Ita Deus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus Spiritus Sanctus.
Et tamen non tres dii, sed unus est Deus.
Ita Dominus Pater, Dominus Filius, Dominus Spiritus Sanctus.
Et tamen non tres Domini, sed unus est Dominus.
Quia, sicut singillatim unamquamque personam Deum ac Dominum confiteri christiana veritate compelimur: ita tres Deos aut Dominos dicere catholica religione prohibemur.
Pater a nullo est factus: nec creatus, nec genitus.
Filius a Patre solo est: non factus, nec creatus, sed genitus.
Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio: non factus, nec creatus, nec genitus, sed procedens.
Unus ergo Pater, non tres Patres: unus Filius, non tres Filii: unus Spiritus Sanctus, non tres Spiritus Sancti.
Et in hac Trinitate nihil prius aut posterius, nihil maius aut minus: sed totae tres personae coaeternae sibi sunt et coaequales.
Ita ut per omnia, sicut iam supra dictum est, et unitas in Trinitate, et Trinitas in unitate veneranda sit.
Qui vult ergo salvus esse, ita de Trinitate sentiat.
Sed necessarium est ad aeternam salutem, ut incarnationem quoque Domini nostri Iesu Christi fideliter credat.
Est ergo fides recta ut credamus et confiteamur, quia Dominus noster Iesus Christus, Dei Filius, Deus et homo est.
Deus est ex substantia Patris ante saecula genitus: et homo est ex substantia matris in saeculo natus.
Perfectus Deus, perfectus homo: ex anima rationali et humana carne subsistens.
Aequalis Patri secundum divinitatem: minor Patre secundum humanitatem.
Qui licet Deus sit et homo, non duo tamen, sed unus est Christus.
Unus autem non conversione divinitatis in carnem, sed assumptione humanitatis in Deum.
Unus omnino, non confusione substantiae, sed unitate personae.
Nam sicut anima rationalis et caro unus est homo: ita Deus et homo unus est Christus.
Qui passus est pro salute nostra: descendit ad inferos: tertia die resurrexit a mortuis.
Ascendit ad caelos, sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis: inde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos.
Ad cuius adventum omnes homines resurgere habent cum corporibus suis: et reddituri sunt de factis propriis rationem.
Et qui bona egerunt, ibunt in vitam aeternam: qui vero mala, in ignem aeternum.
Haec est fides catholica, quam nisi quisque fideliter firmiterque crediderit, salvus esse non poterit. Amen.
"The Roman Pontiff ceases in office:....(4) Through notorious public heresy? Five answers have been given:
1. 'The pope cannot be a heretic even as a private teacher.' A pious thought, but essentially unfounded. 2. 'The pope loses office even through secret heresy.' False, because a secret heretic can be a member of the Church. 3. 'The pope does not lose office because of public heresy.' Objectionable. 4. 'The pope loses office by a judicial sentence because of public heresy.' But who would issue the sentence? The See of Peter is judged by no one (Canon 1556). 5. 'The pope loses office ipso facto because of public heresy.' This is the more common teaching, because a pope would not be a member of the Church, and hence far less could be its head."
Institutiones Iuris Canonici. 5th ed. Santander: Sal Terrae, 1956. 1:396.
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.