In your opinion are sedevacantists Traditional Catholics?

[alih]

i do recall a quote attributable to pope paul vi, where-in he was supposed to have said, “the enemies of the church are now in the vestibule.” pope pius x issued the syllabas (sp?) of errors, condemning the beliefs of the modernists. all the hierarchy of the church was operating under the canon law of 1917 until abrogated in 1988 by the promulgation of the code of canon law of 1983. all the talk about whom is better than who, is just so much personal opinion. what matters was the laws in force at the time and their application. have a good year. (alih)

 

[MTD]

In the case you describe, where clear dogma is denounced as heresy, do you not think that the Church as a whole, cardinals, bishops, priest and laity, would mostly all know this also?

Not necessarily, especially if they hold the heresy themselves. Heretics usually have a following.

Besides, I am curious as to how St. Bellarmine’s writings have been incoporated into Church law. I noticed that he is often quoted, but never the canon laws which his teachings influenced.

First, I believe St. Robert Bellarmine’s writings were used at the First Vatican Council, in which papal infallibility was defined.

Second, the quotes from St. Robert Bellarmine have nothing to do with canon law. They concern Divine law. I did try to explain it a bit in this post.

You see, I have a hard time taking a teaching which might apply to dogma and using it for discipline (or even doctrine) in contradiction to more clear teaching.

I’m not sure I’m getting what you’re trying to say here.

I have a little problem with the practicality of St. Bellarmine’s position in that it does make the issue of infallibility an eternal begging of the question of infalibillity. It is poor logic. It actually undercuts the trust in the infallibility of all popes.

It would seem so. But the only time an infallible statement would be questioned would be when it concerns a disputed subject, such as the Immaculate Conception was. And in that case, the pope can’t be accused of heresy because there wasn’t unanimity among theologians. So when the pope defines such a matter, everyone just submits to it, regardless of what side of the issue they had been on previous to the definition.

On the other hand, if a pope were to contradict a teaching which has been unanimously held by the Church and her theologians to be divinely revealed (i.e., de fide doctrine), then we have a right to be concerned because the pope is no longer settling a dispute or confirming a doctrine already held, but actually opposing a truth always held by the Church.

Anytime a pope would make an infallible statement, it is possible that he is promoting heresy, thus ceases to be pope and thus is incapable of making this infallible statement. All one would have to do to deny any dogma, is to say that it was heretical, therefore the pope ceased to be pope and therefore the statement wasn’t infallible.

Not quite. The pope would have to deny a dogma or other truth always held unanimously by the Church’s theologians to be de fide.

If you know of some reason this logic is faulty, let me know. I am open to understand this teaching more fully, but I can not unless I can rectify the inherent logical fallacy.

Keep up the questions and objections. It takes awhile to get it. I know; I’ve been there.

Maria

 

[gorman64]

Maria,

Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same.

Dogma-The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.

I noticed the example you used was a clearly defined dogma and therefore would meet the criteria of what must be believed. I have never seen denying a clearly defined dogma being used to accuse a pope of heresy.

Dear pnewton,

Your last paragraph is not supported by the previous one. That is the idea that only solemnly defined dogmas need be believed with a divine and Catholic Faith.

Doctrine classified (which is also clearly defined) by the theologians as de fide deserves the theological censure of heresy. This is *not only *solemnly defined Dogmas. There is no set formula or set of words that preface a dogma…they are classified as such by the theologians.

The Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Our Lady are not the only de fide doctrines.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[pnewton]

Doctrine classified (which is also clearly defined) by the theologians as de fide deserves the theological censure of heresy.

Where can I see this in canon law?

And do you have any answer to the logical fallacy dilema above?

 

[MTD]

Where can I see this in canon law?

The 1983 Code of Canon Law defines heresy in can. 751:
Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and catholic faith.

In the previous canon, 750, §1, it defines what truths are to be believed with divine and catholic faith:

A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium.

Obviously, the truths which must be believed with divine and catholic faith are not restricted to clearly defined dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, for can. 750 mentions truths proposed as divinely revealed by the ordinary and universal magisterium as also to be believed with divine and catholic faith (but clearly defined dogmas are those truths proposed by the solemn magisterium).

And do you have any answer to the logical fallacy dilema above?

What problems did you have with my explanation? If you can show me, I can know what I’m missing; otherwise, it’s hard to know what else to say.

Maria

 

[pnewton]

You see, I have a hard time taking a teaching which might apply to dogma and using it for discipline (or even doctrine) in contradiction to more clear teaching.

In order to claim that some of our popes were not really popes, sedevacantist have tried to apply this teaching to disciplinary practice concerning the liturgy, or general heresies like humanism, which has no more meaning than labels like liberal or neocon, short of specific doctrines.

To show the contradiction that I was refering to (you asked for clarification), I can truthful claim an aura of infallibility. This power of mine will continue and only cease if I say something contrary to the doctine of the Church. A catch-22.

Also, perhaps one area of disagreement I will just have to maintain, is that of all the bishops, cardinals and priests falling into the same heresy at once, thus negating the ability of a conclave to make a proper choice of pope. On one hand, their ability to recognize heresy is doubted, while emphasizing their magesterial authority to define doctrine that must be believed. Which is it? Is the magesterium to be trusted?

 

[MTD]

In order to claim that some of our popes were not really popes, sedevacantist have tried to apply this teaching to disciplinary practice concerning the liturgy, or general heresies like humanism, which has no more meaning than labels like liberal or neocon, short of specific doctrines.

Oh, but that has to do with how some sedevacantists are using St. Robert Bellarmine’s teaching; it really has nothing to do with the teaching itself.

I have noticed that many sedevacantists seem to focus on those kinds of things in proving the heresy; I have reason to believe, however, that that is not representative of all sedevacantists.

To show the contradiction that I was refering to (you asked for clarification), I can truthful claim an aura of infallibility. This power of mine will continue and only cease if I say something contrary to the doctine of the Church. A catch-22.

Okay, just a minute here. Actually, St. Robert Bellarmine held the common opinion that a pope could not become a manifest heretic. So in reality, the recognition of heresy in a papal claimant must focus on his beliefs prior to election to the papacy. I believe, but haven’t had a chance to verify, that sedevacantists say that these heresies they see are an indicator that the pope in question never even was a pope in the first place; in other words, he was already a manifest heretic at the time of his election.

And this brings us to another issue. Although it may be theological opinion that a pope who is a manifest heretic ceases to be pope by the fact of his heresy, it is not opinion that a manifest heretic cannot become pope. So while you may legitimately hold with some theologians that a heretic-pope continues as pope, I don’t believe you can hold that a manifest heretic is valid matter for the papacy.

Also, perhaps one area of disagreement I will just have to maintain, is that of all the bishops, cardinals and priests falling into the same heresy at once, thus negating the ability of a conclave to make a proper choice of pope. On one hand, their ability to recognize heresy is doubted, while emphasizing their magesterial authority to define doctrine that must be believed. Which is it? Is the magesterium to be trusted?

Well, that won’t happen because Christ promised that the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail against the Church. It is impossible for all the bishops to fall into heresy. And, if you examine closely, the sedevacantist position does not in actuality hold that all bishops became heretics. Many did, but not all.

Now, I’m not a sedevacantist. I just like to keep this as objective as possible, and that’s why you’re seeing me take Gorman’s side here. It’s because I see eye to eye with him on most of the issues we’re here discussing. It is the issue of whether those popes were in reality heretics that I disagree with him on. And I have not yet had a chance to debate that with him.

Maria

 

[MMLJ]

Well, see, the fact of the pope teaching heresy does not make him a heretic. He has to realize a certain teaching is heresy (i.e., contrary to de fide doctrine) first. Likewise, both the heresy and the pertinacity (realization that the teaching is heresy) must be outwardly discernible to us. If it is not discernible, he is either no heretic at all or an occult heretic. (An occult heretic pope does not lose his papacy; only a manifest heretic does.)

The pontiff is usually very , very intelligent, I am sure we agree. I find it difficult to believe that he cannot discern what is and what is not heretical.

Heresy is a sin because of its nature it is destructive of the virtue of Christian faith…Privation of faith is therefore the greatest evil, and deliberate rejection of faith is the greatest sin. St. Thomas (II-II, Q. x, a. 3) arrives at the same conclusion thus: "All sin is an aversion from God. A sin, therefore, is the greater the more it separates man from God.(The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII. Published 1910. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).

There is ho justification for a pontiff being a heretic or teaching heresy. How can one teaching heresy not be a heretic? That is an oxymoron. A pope, in order to be a pope should, in the least, know what is heresy. It is only logical, given the vast knowledge Pontiffs have accrued in their lives, but more importantly because of the great responsibility of his Title as the Vicar of Christ (Vicarius Christi).

 

[pnewton]

Okay, just a minute here. Actually, St. Robert Bellarmine held the common opinion that a pope could not become a manifest heretic. So in reality, the recognition of heresy in a papal claimant must focus on his beliefs prior to election to the papacy.

Then I undertand that. It resolves my objection. It also means we should ignore any “proof” of heresy based on encyclicals of papal addresses. Also such heresy should be evident, since by definition it is **obstinant **denial, not a vague insinuation.

 

[MTD]

MTD:

Okay, just a minute here. Actually, St. Robert Bellarmine held the common opinion that a pope could not become a manifest heretic. So in reality, the recognition of heresy in a papal claimant must focus on his beliefs prior to election to the papacy.

Then I undertand that. It resolves my objection. It also means we should ignore any “proof” of heresy based on encyclicals of papal addresses.

Not quite. If a newly elected pope issues a heretical statement, we have to look at his past. He may have been a manifest heretic at the time of his election and so may not be pope at all. In other words, heretical statements from a pope are an indicator that the pope in question was never even a pope in the first place.

Remember that manifest heretic does not necessarily mean that all or many have recognized the heresy of said heretic. It means that the wrong belief and pertinacity of the heretic are externally evident to reasonably people.

Also such heresy should be evident, since by definition it is **obstinant **denial, not a vague insinuation.

Actually, obstinate does not mean evident; manifest does, however. An occult heretic is obstinate in his heresy, but not manifest; his heresy is not evident. A manifest heretic is obstinate in his heresy; his heresy and obstinacy in it are evident. So obstinacy is really unrelated to evidence/manifestation.

Maria

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread has veered way off topic. It is now closed, but those who wish to continue to discuss heresy and the popes may start a new thread on the topic. Thank you.