Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Church of the Word Incarnate
EWTN Library ^ | 1954 | Charles Cardinal Journet

Posted on 06/16/2004 8:33:58 PM PDT by gbcdoj

The Church of The Incarnate Word

Charles Cardinal Journet (b. 1891 d. 1975)

Selections From Chapter VIII, Excursus VIII: Election of a Pope

(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.

Selections From Chapter VIII, Excursus IX: Loss of the Pontificate

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 ...


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Theology
KEYWORDS: cardinaljournet; charlesjournet; infallibility; sedevacantism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101 next last
To: sinkspur

"In fact, none of these three men can write a word that's not a bash of the post-Vatican II Church."

That's because it's so bash-able. Let's face it: when the bishops and pope attempt to impose a new religion on people, it's not enough to claim it's Catholic just because they say so. It must conform to past Church teachings. The postconciliar Apostolic See doesn't bother with this. They simply demand blind obedience. No way, Jose. Catholic Tradition is the measure of what is truly Catholic--not what they claim.


61 posted on 06/17/2004 5:20:46 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj
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.

He means EXACTL what he states:

"(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;"

62 posted on 06/17/2004 5:24:31 PM PDT by Viva Christo Rey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj

Lighten up.


63 posted on 06/17/2004 5:27:31 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST

I haven't YET heard of a solution from you, AAA.

Fair and impartial trial, with capital punishment for abusers of juveniles.

You gotta problem with that?


64 posted on 06/17/2004 5:35:39 PM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj
A formal heretic elected to the papacy could never acquire validity as I have shown.

Validity because of 'universal acceptance' is false as I have cited.

The argument you are pursuing is a complete dead end, as I posit to you the following case, a valid pope, legitimately elected, who would later become a heretic and defect from the Faith and hence the Papacy.

In this instance he would have been validly accepted when he WAS valid, later became a heretic, and hence the question of universal acceptance does not matter in the least.

In any event, in neither example is acceptance universal. There are certainly a number of Catholics, who do not accept the V2 era 'popes' as valid. These may seem to be a small minority, but if the universe is those who hold the Faith whole and entire, they are rapidly approaching a majority.

65 posted on 06/17/2004 5:36:13 PM PDT by Viva Christo Rey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

Although AAA doesn't like the concept, he produces no ideas of his own.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with capital punishment for child abusers, and I don't have a problem with capital punishment for their enablers/co-conspirators.


66 posted on 06/17/2004 5:37:49 PM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Viva Christo Rey; gbcdoj

Sorry, but all you've stated there is that there are SOME who do not accept the Pope.

However, before those SOME's opinions can be admitted, those SOME's attachment/membership in the Church must be examined, critically. Get the hint? No schismatics need apply.

Excluding the schismatics, then, do you mean to define "universally" as "each and every Catholic of majority and mentally competent on the face of the Earth at the time of election"?


67 posted on 06/17/2004 5:55:20 PM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
That's because it's so bash-able

I could easily bash the Tridentine Mass, with its accoutrements, to say nothing of the dress of pre-Vatican II bishops, with their buskins, and gloves and other effeminacies.

And, the Papal Tiara...what a tempting target.

But, I don't, because I respect your sensitivities.

But you don't respect mine.

68 posted on 06/17/2004 5:58:24 PM PDT by sinkspur (There's no problem on the inside of a kid that the outside of a dog can't cure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Viva Christo Rey
A formal heretic elected to the papacy could never acquire validity as I have shown. Validity because of 'universal acceptance' is false as I have cited.

A strawman.

a valid pope, legitimately elected, who would later become a heretic and defect from the Faith and hence the Papacy

In this case he was valid until he defected from the Faith - the Church did not err in accepting him as a true Pontiff.

There are certainly a number of Catholics, who do not accept the V2 era 'popes' as valid.

Certainly moral unanimity is sufficient. All Catholic bishops accepted John Paul and his predecessors as Pope, as did over 99.999% of the members of the Catholic Church.

if the universe is those who hold the Faith whole and entire, they are rapidly approaching a majority

A few thousand sedevacantists a majority of the Church! The local Church of Rome is infallible in itself (Dz. 730) and accepted the Pope and his successors. If they were invalid, it erred in a dogmatic fact - something impossible according to Catholic dogma.

69 posted on 06/17/2004 6:21:54 PM PDT by gbcdoj (For not the hearers of the law are just before God: but the doers of the law shall be justified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Viva Christo Rey

It can't acquire validity. No one disputes this.

Obedience accorded by all infallibly proves that the Pope-elect is NOT a heretic.


70 posted on 06/17/2004 6:23:26 PM PDT by gbcdoj (For not the hearers of the law are just before God: but the doers of the law shall be justified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
And, the Papal Tiara...what a tempting target.

Yeah, they needed to loosen up and become entertainers:


71 posted on 06/17/2004 6:27:07 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish

YOU need to loosen up.


72 posted on 06/17/2004 6:30:23 PM PDT by sinkspur (There's no problem on the inside of a kid that the outside of a dog can't cure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
I haven't YET heard of a solution from you, AAA. Fair and impartial trial, with capital punishment for abusers of juveniles. You gotta problem with that?

Why don't we start with defrocking them first? Or making even the allusion of being "gay" verbotten. I'd be happy if we started with that.

Exactly who is going to execute these canoodlers and under what system? To be honest I personally don't think death is a disproportionate response to someone who has sex on an innocent child -ruining their life in the process, but that's just not what we do anymore. Get real.

Then again you want to execute those who are disobedient to the pope, so I am extremely hesitant to agree with you on these matters.

The homosexuals are very much a problem, but they're more a result of other debilitating factors than the cause. Solving our gay problem would only be a drop in the bucket of the "solution" you refer to.

If we didn't provide a fertile ground for homosexuality (in addition to all the other sin, heresy and madness) to paradoxically thrive in the church that Christ founded, we wouldn't have to worry about what to do with them. It wouldn't be an issue.

You brought up a very good point in referring to solutions. In fact I'm going write an article and post it on angelqueen at my next available opportunity.

73 posted on 06/17/2004 6:38:03 PM PDT by AAABEST (Lord have mercy on us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST

Tiny Tim's Geldings Clubhouse would burn Joan of Arc at the stake again, if they had a chance.


74 posted on 06/17/2004 6:50:30 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST
Then again you want to execute those who are disobedient to the pope, so I am extremely hesitant to agree with you on these matters.

Read my post carefully--this is not true. The merely disobedient will be tortured, carefully, until they recant.

Under what system...we don't do that anymore...

We'll work on that little problem. There may be an island out there that's not claimed as 'territory,' allowing the TTGC to establish a government which would accomodate our needs. Glad you brought that up, you wizard of practicality.

Actually, as is usually the case, one or two carefully justified and well-publicized beheadings will have a REMARKABLE effect on other cannoodlers; maybe even repentance!

75 posted on 06/17/2004 7:01:50 PM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish

Perhaps Patrick, a native of Germany, wasted his time on certain Celt tribes. Your existence would prove the theory.


76 posted on 06/17/2004 7:03:07 PM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: ninenot

My blood is one quarter German. Maybe that's why I was spared.


77 posted on 06/17/2004 7:08:30 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
Perhaps Patrick, a native of Germany, wasted his time on certain Celt tribes. Your existence would prove the theory.

How many people did St. Patrick torture and/or execute?

78 posted on 06/17/2004 7:15:07 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj; 8mmMauser; AAABEST; Polycarp IV; NYer; Salvation; cpforlife.org; Land of the Irish; ...

Well you really bring up many good statements. Now I do not adhere to the seda vecantist theory currently but it certainly was something posited by a great doctor of the Church so I think it is a possibility. I just believe that it is such a dire situation and it would be up to a future Pope to formerly declare that such were the case unless things were a real gross job.

Now, here is the problem with saying that a Pope could not defect. This takes away his FREE WILL. Now the Holy Spirit knows ahead of time which man could defect and which man would so you could make an argument that it seems Bellarmaine made that it is possible but not probable because the Holy Spirit would not want to allow it. We are dealing however with a ‘mystery of iniquity’ Could such a thing happen?

Now it is clear that the blessed Virgin could have said no to God she was given a choice. So I think that to say that a Pope could not say NO to God in terms of No I will not behave and believe as a Catholic in public is possible.

If a Pope were to declare publically that he thought Jesus was not God's son and he was Christ or an antichrist was Christ well then its obvious that he is not the Pope whether or not he was validly elected or not. The reason is that once he were to declare a false doctrine that was manifest and that he would not be corrected by those under him who made the attempt well then the church would have to step in and elect a new Pope. Now if he did not do this because of coercion or other Cardinals of the Church were following him in his heresy well then we would be in a mess wouldn't we? And this is precisely what the Seda vecantist state.

Its important to remember that Judas betrayed Christ for 30 pieces of silver and Peter denied he knew Christ to save his skin which was actually worse- however Peter repented and Judas hung himself. Both were used by devine providence to bring about the salvation of the world. (I mean in potential of cource. I do NOT believe everyone is saved. Jesus said just the opposite -"many are called and few are chosen. Wide is the path that leads to perdition and many travel it.)

Now Honorius was excommunicated for allowing heresy to flourish but he was not declared a non Pope ahead of time by anyone that I know of. Of course the seda vecantists claim that JP II has done the same thing only our situation is even worse than it has ever been. They also say that JP II has promoted Universal Salvation and performed communicatio in Sacris because he prayed with pagans at Assisi and so many other places. “The prayer meeting in the sanctuary at Lake Togo was particularly striking. There I prayed for the first time with animists” L’Osservatore Romano, August 26, 1985, p. 9.and La Croix, a French Periodical. It is time to stop calling the traditional Catholics who adhere to this theory as “termites” and outside the Church when even the conciliar Popes themselves say the Orthodox are not excommunicated and that you can go to their liturgy to fulfill your Sunday obligation. If the Pope is going to rehabilitate Martin Luther, and pray with animists then maybe he ought to pray with the traditionalist Catholics who have been so scandalized by his pontificate- then maybe he would begin to understand how he ought to apologize for his pontificate and stop apologizing for the Popes of the past. Now even JP II admitted recently that, In excerpts printed by Il Giornale newspaper on Sunday ahead of the book's publication on May 18, the pope said church leaders had to admonish people as well as lead them in faith. "I think that in this aspect, maybe I have done too little. There is always this problem of how to balance authority and service. Perhaps I need to criticize myself for not having tried hard enough to lead," the pope wrote. See www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=24& art_id=qw1084714561570B211&set_id=1 - 42k

These traditional Catholics do have a point, however, I do not think that individual lay people or clergyman should make this theory a doctrine and start excommunicating the Pope and others who through no fault of there own lived under his “progressive” pontificate.

However if a Pope in the future were to say excommunicate a conciliar Pope then this would manifest itself then. I really don’t think you can compare say a Pope St. Pius V or X with a conciliar Pope. The past popes clarified and disciplined and restored and the conciliar Popes although they may have wanted to so call “reform” the Church have ended up doing the very opposite. Just read Kenneth Jones book Catholic Index of Indicators. Facts are facts. However, if a future Pope would excommunicate say St. Pius X well then whether he was validly elected or not he is a madman and not to be obeyed. These popes are Saints and any theologian who put them down should be castigated -whoever it may be. So is the Catholic Encyclopedia right on the indefectibility of a Pope who is accepted by the universal Church- yes of course. However, if such a man would try to legitimize say the antichrist or say that Jesus was not “properly speaking” God then he would cease to be a member of the Church and could not be the Pope. So I think that it is possible that this could happen. Of course at that point such a man would become an antiPope because he would not just be allowing heresy to spread but would be promoting it.

In the future things will be more clear as to what really happened in this confusing era which even confused and or disappointed (depending on how you want to look at it) the Conciliar Popes themselves were. Even Pope Paul VI said that the smoke of Satan had entered the sanctuary and Pope John Paul II at the beginning of his pontificate on the occasion of a Congress on missions to people: "There is need to admit realistically and with a deep and sober sensibility that Christians today, for the most part, are dismayed, confused, perplexed, and even frustrated, ideas conflicting with revealed and constantly taught Truth have been scattered by handfuls; true and real heresies in the sphere of dogma and morals have been spread, creating doubts, confusions, rebellions; the liturgy has been violated; immersed in intellectual and moral “relativism,” and therefore in permissiveness. Christians have been allured by atheism, by agnosticism, by a vaguely moralistic enlightenment, by socialistic Christianity, without defined dogma and without objective morals." See L'Osservatore Romano. Feb 7 1981. It is time for people to wake up and face reality- there will be no “new springtime”. We have to go about the work of restoration not reckovation which has been going on for the past 40 years in the “Conciliar Desert”. How do you do that in times of rampant heresy ? Study the past which is the key to the future- study the scripture and follow the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church as it has been known by all Catholic’s in all places at all times. Avoid novelty and adhere to the tradition of our Fathers who were martyred for their Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith!

Daniel 12:10 Many shall be chosen, and made white, and shall be tried as fire: and the wicked shall deal wickedly, and none of the wicked shall understand, but the learned shall understand.


79 posted on 06/17/2004 7:46:39 PM PDT by pro Athanasius (Daniel 12:3 But they that are learned, shall shine as the brightness of the firmament: and they that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

"I could easily bash the Tridentine Mass, with its accoutrements, to say nothing of the dress of pre-Vatican II bishops, with their buskins, and gloves and other effeminacies"

Be my guest. They are not, however, "effeminacies" so much as an attempt by a past age to give honor to God by an elaborate display of "nothing but the best." Nowadays it seems somewhat absurd--and should be updated.

The postconciliar Church is another matter. We're not talking about what the bishops wear on the outside, we're talking about doctrinal heterodoxy, corruption and apostasy, loss of faith--in other words, about what the bishops are wearing on the inside.

Big difference.


80 posted on 06/18/2004 3:51:16 AM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson