Posted on 09/15/2005 4:25:54 AM PDT by GratianGasparri
What the heck are you talking about? I don't see any of those Popes, saints, or doctors saying that Bl. John XXIII, etc., are "formal heretics" and therefore non-Popes. Do they talk about what happens when if Pope becomes a manifest heretic? Sure. Does that substantiate sedevacantism? Not at all, because the pope isn't a notorious heretic (or a heretic at all, for that matter).
breakers,
"there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff". Do you obey the true Sovereign Pontiff? Want to tell all us benighted Catholics who he is?
PS: I love how 700+ years is supposedly "The time is fast approaching". Don't you think that prophecy likely has more to do with the Great Western Schism than with today?
Are you suggesting that St. Francis was speaking about these current times?If so, 750 years is not very fast, and why tell your followers, who will not come close to living during them? Who has been raised to the Pontificate, non canonically? Who is violently opposed to the Rule and manner of life for the Franciscans? And also, who is trying to rid such "pestilent men" from the the face of the Earth? I am unaware of any deaths of schismatics at the hands of anyone.
I think this "prophecy" is being misapplied here.
LOL We must have been reading this simultaneously and with identical skepticism.
More than a mere "pious hope". Have you ever read Bellarmine?
Prima est Alberti Pighii lib. 4 cap. 8 hierarch. Eccles. ubi contendit, papam non posse esse haereticum; proinde nec deponi in ullo casu, quae sententia probabilis est, et defendi potest facile, ut postea suo loco ostendemus. Quia tamen non est certa, et communis opinio est in contrarium, operae pretium erit videre, quid sit respondendum, si papa haereticus esse possit. (De Romano Pontifice, lib. ii., cap. xxx.)
Quarta propositio. Probabile est, pieque credi potest, summum pontificem, non solum ut pontificem errare non posse, sed etiam ut particularem personam haereticam esse non posse, falsum aliquid contra fidem pertinaciter credendo. Probatur primo, quia id videtur requirere suavis dispositio providentiae Dei. Nam pontifex non solum non debet, nec potest haeresim praedicare, sed etiam debet veritatem semper docere, et sine debio id faciet, cum Dominus illi jusserit confirmare fratres suos, et propterea addiderit, Rogavi pro te, ut non deficiat fides tua, idest, ut saltem non deficiat in throno tuo praedicatio verae fidei: at quomodo, quaeso, confirmabit fratres in fide, et veram fidem semper praedicabit pontifex haereticus? Potest quidem Deus ex corde haeretico extorquere verae fidei confessionem, sicut verba posuit quondam in ore asinae Balaam: at violentum erit, et non secondum morem providentiae Dei suaviter disponentis omnia.Secondo probatur ab eventu; name hactenus nullus fuit haereticus, vel certe de nullo probari potest, quod haereticus fuerit; ergo signum est, non posse esse. Plura vide apud Pighium. ...
Secundo dico; canones illos non velle dicere, pontificem etiam ut privatum personam posse errare, sed tantum non posse pontificem judicari: quia tamen non est omnino certum, an possit necne esse haereticus pontifex; ideo ad majorem cautelam, addunt conditionem, nisi fiat haereticus. (De Romano Pontifice, lib. iv., cap. vi-vii.)
BTW the V2 apostate 'popes' were all formal heretics before being elected so they were never 'popes' for one moment.
Yawn. Even if they were "formal heretics", that wouldn't mean they couldn't be raised to the sovereign Pontificate; Bellarmine expressly cites and refutes as untenable (De Romano Pontifice, lib. ii., cap. xxx.) the opinion that an occult heretic cannot be Pope. Not, of course, that you could show that the "V2 apostate 'popes'" were heretics at all, since you can't; no sedevacantist can. I note you ignore my cite from Wernz-Vidal. It is a fact that the "V2 apostate 'popes'" were received by the Church; it is a fact that this is an infallible sign that they are true popes. "But the peaceful acceptance of the universal Church", says Cardinal Journet, "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.)"
One wonders whether you, such a tenacious defender of the teaching of Bellarmine, also hold to this portion of it.
At secundum dico, posse in episcopis duo considerari. Primo, quod locum Christi teneant, et quod propterea debeamus illis obedientiam, et quod ipsi non possint nos deciperere in illis, quae necessaria sunt ad salutem. Secundo, quod habeant potestatem ordinis et jurisdictionis. Si primo modo considerentur, certi sumus certitudine infallibili, quod isti, quos videmus, sint veri episcopi et pastores nostri. Nam ad hoc non requiritur, nec fides, nec character ordinis, nec legitimata electio, sed solum, ut habeantur pro talibus ab Ecclesia. Cum enim sint episcopi propter Ecclesiam, non contra: Deus assistit eis, qui pro talibus habentur, ne errent in Ecclesia docenda. Itaque sunt illi veri episcopi et pastores, non absolute: sed quo ad illa tria quae diximus. (De Ecclesia Militante, lib. iii., cap. x.)
Which is:
But to the second I say that two things can be considered in the bishops. Firstly, that they hold the place of Christ, and that because of this we owe obedience to them, and that they cannot deceive in those things which are necessary to salvation. Secondly, that they have the power of order and jurisdiction. If they are considered in the first way, we are certain with infallible certitude that they, whom we see, are true bishops and our pastors. For neither faith or the character of order or legitimate election are required for this, but only this, that they are held for such by the Church. For since they are bishops because of the Church, not against her: God assists them, who are held for such, lest they err in teaching in the Church. And so they are true bishops and pastors, not absolutely: but as regards what we said about those three things.
And anyone can see that the "V2 apostate 'popes'" were and always have been held as true popes by the Catholic Church.
Heck, we might as well continue with the same place of Bellarmine. How exactly do sedevacantists uphold this one, I wonder?
Si secundo modo considerentur, non habemus certudinem, nisi moralem, quod isti sint veri episcopi, quamquam certum est certitudine infallibili, quod aliqui saltem sint veri, alioqui Deus Ecclesiam deseruisset. (lib. iii., cap. x.)
That is,
If they (the bishops) are considered in the second way ("that they have the power of order and jurisdiction"), we do not have certitude, except moral, that they are true bishops, although it is certain with an infallible certitude that at least some are true, otherwise God would have deserted the Church.
One wonders where the sedevacantists have bishops endowed with jurisdiction, which we know is only bestowed by the Apostolic See.
But to the second I say that two things can be considered in the bishops. Firstly, that they hold the place of Christ, and that because of this we owe obedience to them, and that they cannot deceive in those things which are necessary to salvation. ... we are certain with infallible certitude that they, whom we see, are true bishops and our pastors. For neither faith or the character of order or legitimate election are required for this, but only this, that they are held for such by the Church. For since they are bishops because of the Church, not against her: God assists them, who are held for such, lest they err in teaching in the Church.
No reply? Hmm.
Wrong again.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htmThe subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval. The heretical tenets may be ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas: in none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness--free choice--is wanting and such heresy is merely objective, or material. On the other hand the will may freely incline the intellect to adhere to tenets declared false by the Divine teaching authority of the Church. The impelling motives are many: intellectual pride or exaggerated reliance on one's own insight; the illusions of religious zeal; the allurements of political or ecclesiastical power; the ties of material interests and personal status; and perhaps others more dishonourable. Heresy thus willed is imputable to the subject and carries with it a varying degree of guilt; it is called formal, because to the material error it adds the informative element of "freely willed".
Pertinacity, that is, obstinate adhesion to a particular tenet is required to make heresy formal. For as long as one remains willing to submit to the Church's decision he remains a Catholic Christian at heart and his wrong beliefs are only transient errors and fleeting opinions.
Sedevacantist "theologians". Sigh.
Why am I now reminding you of the reading? Because like those Athenians, there are those today who spend their time doing nothing else except discussing and listening to new things coming forth yesterday or a little earlier from craftsmen, off-hand pontificating on theology, perhaps servants and slaves and fugitives from domestic service, grandly philosophizing to us about matters difficult to understand. ... For if you ask about change, they philosophize to you about the Begotten and the Unbegotten. And if you ask about the price of bread, the reply is, 'The Father is greater, and the Son is subject to him.' If you say, 'Is the bath ready?', they declare the Son has his being from the non-existent. I am not sure what this evil should be called - inflammation of the brain or madness, or some sort of epidemic disease which contrives the derangement of reasoning. (St. Gregory of Nyssa, Sermon on the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, P.G. 46.557)
despicable liar ... keep on kissin' dat Koran with yo' main man, Karol Wojtyla ... Go pound sand.
I guess you just can't admit to being wrong.
Have a blessed Sunday, and may the grace of God lead to back to his one Catholic Church, extra quam nulla salus est.
Since the Council Fathers deliberated on the details and history of infallibility at the General Council of the Vatican (1870), it is unanimously held as a matter-of-fact, to be Catholic teaching that a pope who is a manifest heretic ceases automatically to be pope and Catholic. That priniciple is solid Catholicism approved by Rome. There is no sense in arguing that it is not possible. The most someone can say is that so-called "sedevacantists" are APPLYING this true principle wrongly in today's situation. Fine, argue that, but don't say things like "sedevacantism is wrong". The "sedevacantists" are not wrong in principle. The argument from the infallibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium is a solid one, as well as the principle of "a doubtful pope is no pope"....which the likes of the SSPX completely invert and give the BENEFIT of the doubt.
St. Robert Bellarmine was the only one who commented that he did not think the Lord would allow it. This opinion was not retained after 1870. And if you look at what St. Robert was saying, he said BOTH that it COULD happen AND that it WOULD NOT happen. There is no contradiction. The concepts of "could" & "would" are not synonymous. St. Robert argued from reason, Church teaching and the teachings of the Fathers to show it COULD happen. As for saying it "would not" he merely gave his own pious opinion that the Lord's mercy would not allow it to happen. St. Robert added this comment to a disturbing subject to help ease the mind of the fearful and scrupulous. Again, this was not retained after 1870, and, I say, for good providential reason.
I think you've misunderstood me, so let me clarify: when I said that "sedevacantism is, in fact, a pathetic joke", I was using 'sedevacantism' to refer to the rejection of the last couple Popes, not as referring to the widely-held opinion (which I myself hold) that if a Pope were to fall into manifest heresy he would fall from the Pontificate. That is why my three proofs of the its status as a "pathetic joke" were that (1) these Popes have always been recognized as legitimate by the Catholic Church, which (recognition) is infallible, (2) the documents pointed to for proof of the supposed defection from the Faith are protected by the assistance of the Holy Spirit according to Franzelin, et al., (3) the teachings of the Popes objected to as heretical are clearly not. All of these have to do with 'sedevacantism' considered as that opinion held about the actual existence of a vacant see at this time and in the recent past, not with the opinion of Bellarmine and others that a heretical Pope is deposed ipso facto.
A couple comments on your post:
it is unanimously held as a matter-of-fact, to be Catholic teaching that a pope who is a manifest heretic ceases automatically to be pope and Catholic.
Not quite correct. Journet, at least, says (although I don't think he's right): "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."
St. Robert Bellarmine was the only one who commented that he did not think the Lord would allow it.
Not so. St. Alphonsus said the same, as did others, e.g., Pighius.
This opinion was not retained after 1870.
In fact, Cardinal Journet writes in 1952:
Next, comes the debated case of an heretical Pope.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.
Likewise, from the Acta of Vatican I: "Firmly trusting in supernatural providence, we think that such things quite probably will never occur." (Mansi 52:1109).
as well as the principle of "a doubtful pope is no pope"....which the likes of the SSPX completely invert and give the BENEFIT of the doubt.
I agree with you on this. As Journet says: "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."
Hi breakers,
But none of those, very true, quotes about the loss of jurisdiction due to manifest heresy apply to the Pope, since he is not a heretic. You, on the other hand, are a schismatic, and so are "independent" sedevacantist clergy. I hope you're not attempting to receive the Sacraments from them; as Thomas says: "The power of jurisdiction ... does not remain in schismatics and heretics. Hence they can neither absolve ... or anything of this sort. If they do this, the act is null." Outside the Church, no salvation.
God bless.
ST. ROBERT CARDINAL BELLARMINE, S.J. (1542-1621), Doctor of the Church & Theologian (De Ecclesia Militante)
"But to the second I say that two things can be considered in the bishops. Firstly, that they hold the place of Christ, and that because of this we owe obedience to them, and that they cannot deceive in those things which are necessary to salvation. Secondly, that they have the power of order and jurisdiction. If they are considered in the first way, we are certain with infallible certitude that they, whom we see, are true bishops and our pastors. For neither faith or the character of order or legitimate election are required for this, but only this, that they are held for such by the Church. For since they are bishops because of the Church, not against her: God assists them, who are held for such, lest they err in teaching in the Church. And so they are true bishops and pastors, not absolutely: but as regards what we said about those three things."
"If they (the bishops) are considered in the second way ("that they have the power of order and jurisdiction"), we do not have certitude, except moral, that they are true bishops, although it is certain with an infallible certitude that at least some are true, otherwise God would have deserted the Church."
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.