Salvation outside the church

[SFD]

No. It has nothing to do with ‘ferendae sententiae.’ The excommunication itself happens at the moment of the act, but lawful action can only be taken against the person after the act has been juridically established. According the canons of both codes (1917 and 1983), the person must be confronted with his error by a competent ecclesiastical authority and he must then persist in his error.

The key distinction here is excommunicati vitiandi versus excommunicati tolerati. All ‘ferendae sententiae’ offenders are excommunicati vitiandi, but only those ‘latae sententiae’ offenders, whose offense has been lawfully and publicly recognized by the competent ecclesiastical authority are excommunicati vitiandi.

All other ‘latae sententiae’ offenders are excommunicati tolerati. Therefore, on grounds of canon law (never minding the theological implications), a pope could only lose office if 1) his offense, committed before being elected pope, was lawfully and publicly recognized by a party with ecclesiastical authority over him, or 2) once elected, he were to publish a recognition of excommunication against himself.

Where did you get this? It is not the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine…who’s teaching is it then?

What is the significance of a being declared a “vitiandus”? Are you saying a heretic must be declared a “vitiandus” before he would be considered ipso facto excommunicated?

The sedevacantist position is that each man, woman and child passing judgment based on what seems true to him. They turn the Church into a lawless anarchy.

There is no idea that all ecclesiastical laws cease to exist due to a vacant office…any more than what happens when a pope dies…all the laws do not cease to bind Catholics.

SFD

 

[Just_a_Thought]

Heresy is a sin against the Faith…it is a crime when it becomes public. Here is the CE:

Like any crime, action cannot be taken until the crime and culpability have been lawfully established. You keep ignoring this but it is essential. The Church is a society governed not by the fallible thinking of flawed individuals but by LAWS established by divinely appointed authority.

By declaring a person deposed from office before lawful judgment has been passed, you trample upon those laws, upon the Church and therefore upon Christ. You have no authority to depose even a lay catechetical director at your local parish, yet you arrogate to yourself the authority to declare bishops and popes deposed from office? This is complete and total nonsense.

 

[SFD]

Like any crime, action cannot be taken until the crime and culpability have been lawfully established. You keep ignoring this but it is essential. The Church is a society governed not by the fallible thinking of flawed individuals but by LAWS established by divinely appointed authority.

You are incorrect. An ipso facto excommunication does exactly this.
Catholic Encyclopedia:

Censures latæ sententiæ (of sentence pronounced) are incurred ipso facto by the commission of the crime; in other words, the delinquent incurs the penalty in the very act of breaking the law, and the censure binds the conscience of the delinquent immediately, without the process of a trial, or the formality of a judicial sentence. The law itself inflicts the penalty in the moment when the violation of the law is complete. this kind of penalty is especially effective in the Church, whose subjects are obliged in conscience to obey her laws.

By declaring a person deposed from office before lawful judgment has been passed, you trample upon those laws, upon the Church and therefore upon Christ. You have no authority to depose even a lay catechetical director at your local parish, yet you arrogate to yourself the authority to declare bishops and popes deposed from office? This is complete and total nonsense.

No, what is “nonsense” is your accusation that I have “declared” anything.

It is often argued that we “cannot judge.” But a heretic is one who is self-judged, and who has left the Church by his own action. It is a visible fact that he is not a member. To observe and state this fact is not to “judge” in a legal sense, any more than to observe that someone is dead. In Scripture and the law of the Church, we are gravely obliged to avoid heretics. This would largely be impossible if it were restricted only to individuals formally condemned by name by the Holy See, and there is no basis in the tradition of the Church for this view.

SFD

 

[DustinsDad]

Yes, but only if…

1. They understand the truth being preached to them and still remain non-Catholic; or
2. They are culpable for not understanding through some hardness of heart…

And both of these possibilities are beyond all human judgment.

Agreed…as would most traditional folks. Problem is, the language spoken nowadays leads one to one of two conclusions:

1. 
   *]That the judgement has already been made and known, and that all Jews are hereby judged inculpable for rejection/ignorance.
   *]That OT covenant is sufficient in and of itself, and that there is no need of conversion to Christ for the salvation of their souls and for the glory of God.
   Now you can say that that is not the intent of the authors (which may or may not be true, depending on who is using this language), and that such interpretations are not consistent with the teaching of the Church (which is true, as such interpretations are impossible to reconcile with the deposit of faith, which is what the traditional folks keep harping on) but the resulting confusion and catostrophic consequences of using such language is undeniable to anyone with two eyes and an ounce of common sense.
   
   Case in point: Who are the most offended by Pope Benedict’s renewing and slightly revising the the prayer for the conversion of the Jews…why it’s the people most closely involved with Catholic/Jewish relations! Jews who are arguably the people most culpable for the rejection of Her since they are dealing specifically and tangibly with Her, along with the very members of the hierarchy responsible for engaging in dialogue with these folks. This is scandalous!
   

   Let’s not forget Pope Pius IX’s timeless reminder: “Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as he is (see 1 John 3:2) shall we really understand how close and beautiful a bon joins divine mercy with divine justice.”

   Which just goes to show that the church was not bigoted, unmerciful, and uncharitable for the centuries before VII - comments such as the above were always an addemen to and a nuanced sidenote to the direct and explicit call to conversion for the salvation of souls and for the glory of God. And while it is possible that some people inculpably ignorant of Christ’s Church may be saved - we are never to “assume” that the majority outside are saved or even present such an exception to the rule as if it were or could be the norm. Remember, Pope Pius IX listed these as condemned errors:15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.-Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
   1. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.-Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.
   2. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.-Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
      (Syllabus, Pope Pius IX, 1864)
   These certainly puts the abovemented quote into context. And failing to heed Pope Pius IX (and the rest of the pre-counciliar popes, councils, etc.) in the new “ecumenical” approach, even though binding no formal error, certainly has lead us to where we are today…debating whether or not Jews need to convert.
   
   Now the call to conversion is so muffled, so silenced, so “unspoken”, that members of the upper hierarchy - not to mention the laymen in the pew or the poor souls outside of HMC, are questioning whether conversion is really necessary for Jewish folks after all - i.e., whether issuing such calls to conversion are even proper and a part of the Church’s Divine responsibility.
   
   And may the Lord have mercy on us all.
   

   Yes, I stand by these statements. When this knowledge has been gained (or even, for culpable reasons, it is not gained), the Old is completely and forever obsolete for the person who has gained this knowledge. In union with Pio Nono, however I must insist that God alone is truly capable of rendering such a judgment about the acquisition and responsibility of knowledge. And he ain’t telling.

   If someone is pointing a gun to their head, three chambers loaded, three chambers unloaded, and preparing to pull the trigger…do we try to stop them, or do we tell them what a nice revolver they have?
   
   There is such a thing as sin of ommission. What we don’t say might leave them in ignorace - thus lessening their culpability, but in the process might just be damning ourselves. We *are *our brother’s keeper.
   
   Again, Lord have mercy on us all.
   
   Peace in Christ,
   
   DustinsDad

 

[mgrfin]

**

SFD

Heresy is a crime when it is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism. Because the possible consequences of these actions are so drastic, the notions must be correctly understood and narrowly construed. Even though the penalty attached to this crime is ‘latae sententiae’. It is difficult to assess the exact time an individual is canonically guilty of heresy.

Yes, he is subject to divine law, when he commits this sin of heresy in the internal forum. But in the external forum the Pope is not subject to the canon law. The law of the Church has no control of what happens in the external forum regarding the pope; a fortiori, the Church has no control of what happens in the internal forum regarding the Pope.

The Congregation reports to the Holy Father, as does every congregation. No Congregation has the authority to condemn the Holy Father for the commission of any crime found in the Law of the Church. No one can convoke an Ecumenical Council except the Pope. And Robert Bellarmine in a theory which he held very tenuously that the heresy of a Pope would have to before a public forum of the Church, which no one has the authority to call.

Now, what is important is this matter of Robert Bellarmine. His theology has been twisted by individuals to show the Pope could be a heretic and somehow to be ‘outside the Church”. The twisting is illogical, and unreasonable. More importantly, it is not what he says.

What Bellarmine says is a non-opinion, a non-statement for a theologian. Using Robert Bellarmine for defense of this theory falls completely apart, since, like me, he says it is impossible for a pope to be a heretic. To draw conclusions from his statement is not theologically honest. If Robert wanted to draw opposite conclusion, he would have to have said it.

Would Robert Bellarmine produce the theology of Sedevacantism as a result of his theological uncertitude? Absolutely not. Would his followers produce or support such a theory? Absolutely not. How would they get him canonized by holding such far-out theories.

Would Robert Bellarmine support Sedevacantism? Absolutely not.

And this is a far-out theory. Respected theologians do not hold to such a theory. Only the fringe people hold to it. Schismatics, heretics, apostates – people like Daniel Brown and Saenz, and Schuckardt.

Bellarmine says that he is not theologically certain that a pope could be a heretic, or not be a heretic. Is he saying, maybe a pope could be a heretic. Absolutely not. This is ingenuous, illogical, not rational to put these words in his mouth.

If it is impossible for a pope to be a heretic, it is possible to conclude that a pope can be a heretic. The theory makes absolutely no sense. To twist it to say that the Holy Father can be a heretic because I am not theologically certain that he can’t is not theologically proven. If I say that I am not certain that hell exists, does this mean that I am certain that it does exist? Of course not. How can it be that I say hell doesn’t exist means that hell does exist.

Where, then, is the defense of stating that the Holy Father could be a public heretic. For the Holy Father to commit the crime, his denial must be obstinate. How is the penalty attached to heresy to be imposed on him.

My quote from Wikipedia was an appeal to anyone who would have works of Robert Bellarmine or commentaries on his works where the Church has discarded any teaching that you hold up to support this theory. You make fun of ‘Wikipedia’ yet you quoted statements of the Holy Father, and call them infallible. Wikipedia on this matter is spot-on.

No one holds that the Holy Father can be deposed. Even Robert Bellarmine says it is impossible.
You have no support theologically for this theory. And, for a theologian to defend such a thesis publically would probably called on the carpet of CDF. No responsible, respectable theologians would defend this extremism.

Let me restate my point: the penalty attached to the Law relating to heresy is specially reserved to the Holy Father. Before the imposition of the crime relating to heresy, he could lift the penalty relating to himself.

The Infallibility of the Vicar of Christ was defined in 1870. What did Robert Bellarmine hold about infallibility of the Holy Father. What theological note did he apply to his teaching of this doctrine? I don’t believe that he held that the Holy Father was infallible, speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. I sincerely doubt that he held this doctrine as being de fide definita. (because it wasn’t defined).

Okay, he is not theologically certain that a pope can be a heretic. Then, since his private opinion does not rise to theological certitude, then does it rise to probablility? It is theologically probable that a pope cannot be a heretic?

Yes, Infallibility was defined in Vatican I. In germ it may have always been in existence. But, under what circumstances is a Pope infallible. Vatican I told us that.

The whole theory of sedevacantists gets into the realm of the hazy and delusion when it comes to light that only fringe people hold to it. There is not one mainstream theologian who would hold to it. No one would dare to call Pope Paul VI the ‘arch-heretic’, or that the Church of Vatican II separated itself from the true Church because of concilar documents that certain of the extremes didn’t agree with the statements of Vatican 2.

I don’t want to make this a defense of Sedevacantism, for it raises it to some level of plausibility. It has no plausibility, but the opinion of some people on the fringe.

peace

 

[SFD]

SFD

Heresy is a crime when it is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism. Because the possible consequences of these actions are so drastic, the notions must be correctly understood and narrowly construed. Even though the penalty attached to this crime is ‘latae sententiae’. It is difficult to assess the exact time an individual is canonically guilty of heresy.

Here is the CE on Censures:

Censures latæ sententiæ (of sentence pronounced) are incurred ipso facto by the commission of the crime; in other words, the delinquent incurs the penalty in the very act of breaking the law, and the censure binds the conscience of the delinquent immediately, without the process of a trial, or the formality of a judicial sentence. The law itself inflicts the penalty in the moment when the violation of the law is complete. This kind of penalty is especially effective in the Church, whose subjects are obliged in conscience to obey her laws.

Yes, he is subject to divine law, when he commits this sin of heresy in the internal forum.

And when the sin of heresy becomes public…it becomes a crime…because it now affects the common good.

But in the external forum the Pope is not subject to the canon law.

Why?

The law of the Church has no control of what happens in the external forum regarding the pope; a fortiori, the Church has no control of what happens in the internal forum regarding the Pope.

What does this mean? The Church has no control over the internal forum of any Catholic…She judges externals only.

The Congregation reports to the Holy Father, as does every congregation. No Congregation has the authority to condemn the Holy Father for the commission of any crime found in the Law of the Church. No one can convoke an Ecumenical Council except the Pope. And Robert Bellarmine in a theory which he held very tenuously that the heresy of a Pope would have to before a public forum of the Church, which no one has the authority to call.

No, where did you get that? That was the view of Cajetan…who’s view Bellarmine said “cannot be defended”.

Now, what is important is this matter of Robert Bellarmine. His theology has been twisted by individuals to show the Pope could be a heretic and somehow to be ‘outside the Church”. The twisting is illogical, and unreasonable. More importantly, it is not what he says.

Here is Bellarmine:

"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, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope * in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: ‘He would not be able to retain the episcopate *, and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.’

According to what St. Cyprian affirms in this passage, even had Novatian been the true and legitimate Pope, he would have automatically fallen from the pontificate, if he separated himself from the Church.

"This is the opinion of great recent doctors, as John Driedo (lib. 4 de Script. et dogmat. Eccles., cap. 2, par. 2, sent. 2), who teaches that only they separate themselves from the Church who are expelled, like the excommunicated, and those who depart by themselves from her or oppose her, as heretics and schismatics.** And in his seventh affirmation, he maintains that in those who turn away from the Church, there remains absolutely no spiritual power over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano says the same (lib. 4 de loc., cap. 2), teaching that heretics are neither parts nor members of the Church, and that it cannot even be conceived that anyone could be head and Pope, without being member and part (cap. ult. ad argument. 12). And he teaches in the same place, in plain words, that occult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members, and that therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope. This is also the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book I De Ecclesia.

“The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics * are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved.*”

SFD

 

[mgrfin]

SFD:
I have tried to explain this before. The Holy Father is not subject to the Code. He is the lawgiver. He can change the law at any time. You quote the CE which refers to the previous Code of Canon Law which has been abrogated. You cannot point to one canon which is outside, or above the jurisdiction of the Holy Father. He can change the Code at a moments notice. He can lift a penalty, he can change a definition, he can impose his own will as he wants when it comes to the Law of the Church. There is not one congregation to which he must answer, not one cardinal, not one council, since it is the Holy Father alone who can call a Council, or disband one. His power and his infallibility in this matter is evident. If you disagree, please quote one canon which says he answers to anybody, any congregation, any general, or ecumenical council, which cannot be called without his voice.

It is for this reason we rejoice with the calling of the Second Vatican Council by Pope John XXIII, and which was carried on by the grace of God and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by Pope Paul VI, whom the sedevacantists refer to as the ‘arch-heretic, because they disagreed with the Vicar of Christ on earth.

The Divine Law relating to crimes against faith, heresy in particular, carries with it no penalty of removal from Office by priest, bishop, or pope. Loss of office can happen in the external forum by canonical heresy, but such has to come about by a trial. It is not, in contradiction to what you quoted in CE, automatic.

It is clear, in the current code, that the latae sententiae penalties for heresy, schism and apostasy are not automatic, in that the delinquent incurs the penalty in the very act of breaking the law. He does not. “The New Commentary of the Code of Canon Law” 2000, pg 915, “when a person denies the offense, the sanctions can be justly imposed and declared only by means of canonical process (cc 1717-1728), which is almost never employed. Heresy is a denial or doubt of a ‘truth which is to be believed with divine and catholic faith (cf c. 750#1; but the crime of heresy applies only to this same narrow category of truths; it does not extend to the ‘secondary category of truths; it does not extend to the ‘secondary object of infallibility,” i.e., those truths necessary to preserve and expound the deposit of faith, c 750#2; these are central truths like the Incarnation and Redemption of the Lord, and not at all like the morality of artificial contraception or the discipline of not ordaining women to the priesthood.

“The denial or doubt must be born of ‘bad faith’ (‘mala fide’ see Comm 7:2 (1975) 150, and the praenotanda to the 1977 schema on the church’s teaching office, no. 3) that is, positions taken with full knowledge, deliberate intent, and the understanding that they are contrary to the divine and catholic faith. The denial must be pertinacious, that is, obstinate, definant, and enduring, even after a process of reflection, reconsideration, dialogue and attempted reconciliation.’

With that, it is clear that nothing pertaining to heresy is automatic, and by the very breaking of the law. To the contrary, a penal trial is always required.

I don’t understand. You quote Robert Bellarmine who says that he personally believes that it was impossible for a pope to be a heretic, which I hold. the Pope cannot be a heretic. Then you jump to De Romano Pontifice where there is consideration of a pope being a heretic. What are you quoting of Bellarmine. BTW, it has been stated, and I don’t have a reference, that this whole matter of Bellarmine and papal heresy have been removed from his writings, and his opinion. What say you?

So Cajetan rejects the view of Bellarmine, and you accept the view of Bellarmine. Why? Because he is a saint. Well, his view was cleaned up after his death, and before he was declared a doctor of the church.

 

[mgrfin]

SFD

No, SFD, you are incorrect. Penalties related to excommunication coming from heresy are not automatic, ipso facto.

"Sanctions can be justly imposed or declared only by means of a canonical process, which is almost never employed.

Schism, for example, as in the case of Archbishop Lefebreve, is more than mere refusal of communion. The canon uses the term ‘detrectatio’ implying an adamant refusal and persistent rejection of communion. So, the penalty that was laid on him was not automatic, ipso facto.

“The Eastern code wisely avoided 'automatic penalties and called for warnings before any punishment was imposed.” (Commentary, pg 916), which is what the Roman Church does in practice, issuing warnings before imposing punishment.

peace

 

[catharina]

…

It is for this reason we rejoice with the calling of the Second Vatican Council by Pope John XXIII, and which was carried on by the grace of God and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by Pope Paul VI, whom the sedevacantists refer to as the ‘arch-heretic, because they disagreed with the Vicar of Christ on earth.

…

Thanks for the great post. I’ll add to the above that it is mystifying to me that there are those who echo the very worst enemies of the Church and almost call Popes and Church the anti-Christ. Why doesn’t their own behavior condemn them to themselves?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Schism, for example, as in the case of Archbishop Lefebreve, is more than mere refusal of communion. The canon uses the term ‘detrectatio’ implying an adamant refusal and persistent rejection of communion. So, the penalty that was laid on him was not automatic, ipso facto.

How come here it says:

Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above-mentioned Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, and Bernard Pellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CBISLEFB.HTM

 

[mgrfin]

How come here it says:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CBISLEFB.HTM

It wasn’t ipso facto, stricktly speaking. It was specially declared in the Apostolic Letter of 2 July 1988 by Pope John Paul II, called “Ecclesia Dei”. I am not familar with the letter in your link.
It was signed by Bishop Bernadin on the previous day to Ecclesia Dei. As to why it was issued, I don’t know. John Paul II’s letter certainly has more weight.

"When a person denies the offense, the sanctions can be justly imposed or declared only by means of a canonical process.

In this case the ‘ipso facto’ is a fiction of law, because of the adamant refusal and persistent rejection of communion. The schism was declared and the penalty imposed by special action of the Holy See. At times it is difficult to determine when precisely an individual or group is canonically guilty of apostasy, heresy or schism. So, to assure that all matters have been covered the penalty is handed down, as in Ecclesia Dei, to make sure everyone is aware of it.

That generally is the point of heresy, schism and apostasy in the Code, and where the theory of Sedevacantists fails, since these crimes, and the penalties attached go through a process the Holy See decides on by virtue of canons 1717-1720.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

 

[SFD]

I have tried to explain this before. The Holy Father is not subject to the Code. He is the lawgiver. He can change the law at any time. You quote the CE which refers to the previous Code of Canon Law which has been abrogated.

The CE does not even mention the Code here…the number of crimes against ecclesiastical law given the censure latæ sententiæ was greatly reduced by Pope Pius X…but heresy is a breach of the divine law…this cannot be changed.
Catholic Encyclopedia:

Censures latæ sententiæ (of sentence pronounced) are incurred ipso facto by the commission of the crime; in other words, the delinquent incurs the penalty in the very act of breaking the law, and the censure binds the conscience of the delinquent immediately, without the process of a trial, or the formality of a judicial sentence. The law itself inflicts the penalty in the moment when the violation of the law is complete. This kind of penalty is especially effective in the Church, whose subjects are obliged in conscience to obey her laws.

With that, it is clear that nothing pertaining to heresy is automatic, and by the very breaking of the law.

This is ridiculous…who else holds to this? The very definition of heresy tells us that a heretic self-judged. Here is the CE on Heresy:

St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas”. "The right Christian faith consists in giving one’s voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ’s doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The 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.

It is a VOLUNTARY ASSENT that makes one a Christian…and it is a VOLUNTARY DISSENT that severs one from the Church.

I don’t understand. You quote Robert Bellarmine who says that he personally believes that it was impossible for a pope to be a heretic, which I hold. the Pope cannot be a heretic. Then you jump to De Romano Pontifice where there is consideration of a pope being a heretic. What are you quoting of Bellarmine.

That opinion of Bellarmine I also hold, because he ia a Doctor of the Universal Church. But it is also true that he said it was not theologically certain. What he teaches is true however, that manifest heretics are not members of the Church and cannot hold office in Her.

BTW, it has been stated, and I don’t have a reference, that this whole matter of Bellarmine and papal heresy have been removed from his writings, and his opinion. What say you?

I have not heard nor seen this…where did you hear it and what sources were provided to verify this? It would have been rather recent as he was made a Doctor of the Church by Pope Pius XI.

So Cajetan rejects the view of Bellarmine, and you accept the view of Bellarmine. Why? Because he is a saint. Well, his view was cleaned up after his death, and before he was declared a doctor of the church.

You have this all wrong here. Bellarmine rejects Cajetan’s view that a pope can be deposed by the Church.

continued…

 

[SFD]

"The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom (de auctor. papae et con., cap. 20 et 21) the manifestly heretical Pope is not “ipso facto” deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is “ipso facto” deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us?

"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.

"To this Cajetan responds (in Apol. pro tract. praedicto cap. 25 et in ipso tract. cap. 22) that the heretic is not a Christian “simpliciter” *, but is one “secundum quid” *. For, granted that two things constitute the Christian - the faith and the [baptismal] character - the heretic, having lost the faith, is still in some way united to the Church and is capable of jurisdiction; therefore, he is also Pope, but ought to be removed, since he is disposed, with ultimate disposition, to cease to be Pope: as the man who is still not dead but is “in extremis” [at the point of death].

"Against this: in the first place, if the heretic remained, “in actu” [actually], united to the Church in virtue of the character, he would never be able to be cut or separated from her “in actu”, for the character is indelible. But there is no one who denies that some people may be separated “in actu” from the Church. Therefore, the character does not make the heretic be “in actu” in the Church, but is only a sign that he was in the Church and that he must return to her. Analogously, when a sheep wanders lost in the mountains, the mark impressed on it does not make it be in the fold, but indicates from which fold it had fled and to which fold it ought to be brought back. This truth has a confirmation in St. Thomas who says (Summ. Theol. III, q. 8, a. 3) that those who do not have the faith are not united “in actu” to Christ, but only potentially - and St. Thomas here refers to the internal union, and not to the external which is produced by the confession of faith and visible signs. Therefore, as the character is something internal, and not external, according to St. Thomas the character alone does not unite a man, “in actu,” to Christ.

"Further against the argument of Cajetan: either faith is a disposition necessary “simpliciter” for someone to be Pope, or it is only necessary for someone to be a good Pope “ad bene esse,” to exist well, to be good, as opposed to simply existing]. In the first hypothesis, in case this disposition be eliminated by the contrary disposition, which is heresy, the Pope immediately ceases to be Pope: for the form cannot maintain itself without the necessary dispositions. In the second hypothesis, the Pope cannot be deposed by reason of heresy, for otherwise he would also have to be deposed for ignorance, immorality, and other similar causes, which impede the knowledge, the morality, and the other dispositions necessary for him to be a good Pope (“ad bene esse papae”). In addition to this, Cajetan recognises (tract. praed., ca. 26) that the Pope cannot be deposed for the lack of dispositions necessary, not “simpliciter”, but only “ad bene esse.”

"To this, Cajetan responds that faith is a disposition necessary “simpliciter”, but partial, and not total; and that, therefore, even if his faith disappears he can still continue being Pope, by reason of the other part of the disposition, the character, which still endures.

"Against this argument: either the total disposition, constituted by the character and by faith, is necessary “simpliciter,” or it is not, the partial disposition then being sufficient. In the first hypothesis, the faith disappearing there no longer remains the disposition “simpliciter” necessary, for the disposition “simpliciter” necessary was the total, and the total no longer exists. In the second hypothesis, the faith is only necessary “ad bene esse”, and therefore its absence does not justify the deposition of the Pope. In addition to this, what finds itself in the ultimate disposition to death, immediately thereafter ceases to exist, without the intervention of any other external force, as is obvious; therefore, also the Pope heretic ceases to be Pope by himself, without any deposition. **

cont…

 

[SFD]

"Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are “ipso facto” deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: ‘We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right’; and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that the heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same.

SFD

 

[bobzills]

The CE does not even mention the Code here…the number of crimes against ecclesiastical law given the censure latæ sententiæ was greatly reduced by Pope Pius X…but heresy is a breach of the divine law…this cannot be changed…

I am not sure if this can be changed or not because the Pope has stated that Eastern Orthodox bishops are now guiding the Church. As you know, the Eastern Orthodox have several theological differences with Catholics on many issues, so how can it be that the Eastern Orthodox bishops are now guiding the Church?

 

[catharina]

It is a given that the Church (and only the Church) has the authority to rule that a previous ruler (Pope) was less than a Pope. Yet these days, a number of people declare their “Catholicism” while insisting that the chair of Peter has been vacant for ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty years. They “claim” such authority for themselves without any actual granting of such authority by God or Church. It seems so obvious that by clinging to such anti-Catholic beliefs, there is little to substantiate their twisted version of “Catholicism.”

 

[mgrfin]

The CE does not even mention the Code here…the number of crimes against ecclesiastical law given the censure latæ sententiæ was greatly reduced by Pope Pius X…but heresy is a breach of the divine law…this cannot be changed.

This is ridiculous…who else holds to this? The very definition of heresy tells us that a heretic self-judged. Here is the CE on Heresy:

It is a VOLUNTARY ASSENT that makes one a Christian…and it is a VOLUNTARY DISSENT that severs one from the Church.

That opinion of Bellarmine I also hold, because he ia a Doctor of the Universal Church. But it is also true that he said it was not theologically certain. What he teaches is true however, that manifest heretics are not members of the Church and cannot hold office in Her.

I have not heard nor seen this…where did you hear it and what sources were provided to verify this? It would have been rather recent as he was made a Doctor of the Church by Pope Pius XI.

You have this all wrong here. Bellarmine rejects Cajetan’s view that a pope can be deposed by the Church.

continued…

Heresy as a breach of Canon law can indeed be changed, upped, downed, whatever. Heresy in the internal forum does not put one outside of the church, and, as a matter of fact not all doctrines come under the penalty of heresy in the law of the Church.

You could hold the heresy of saying that birth control was okay, but that would not make you a heretic.

You believe that the Holy Father is a heretic, and for you to say so, does that make you a heretic?

For example, even though schism is of the same class, in the case of Lefebreve, it was laid on him as though it was ‘ferendae sententiae’.

When do you decide that someone is 'obstinate" whether in heresy, apostasy or schism. Probably never if you want to hope that they will change.

You have not given me one example of one law which the Holy Father cannot change, alter, exclude from the law of the Church. You have not shown one legitimate General Council, synod, etc. that was held without his permission. You have not shown one document issued by any commission, or congregation of the Church that he cannot recall. He is the Pope. He is in charge. Not some dissent bishop or priest in remotest Africa, or the United States.

I am going to find where the statement was made that the Church disregarded his stance on this hersey issue by opening another thread seeking information to back-up what was in the Wiki article.

So, Bellarmine was a better theologian than Caejetan? He had his religious order behind him pushing for his Doctorate and for his Crown of Sanctity. That doesn’t mean he knew any more than anyone else. As a matter of fact, on this issue, I think he didn’t know what he was talking about.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

SFD

In point of fact this is not true. Those ‘heretics’, schismatics returning to the Church are not returned as laymen.

I’m going to a hockey game now, but will return to this later.

peace

 

[Neil_Anthony]

It wasn’t ipso facto, stricktly speaking. It was specially declared in the Apostolic Letter of 2 July 1988 by Pope John Paul II, called “Ecclesia Dei”. I am not familar with the letter in your link.
It was signed by Bishop Bernadin on the previous day to Ecclesia Dei. As to why it was issued, I don’t know. John Paul II’s letter certainly has more weight.

…

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

It’s not my intention to help the cause of the sedevacantists here, but I have to disagree with what you’re saying. One letter from the bishops specifically uses the term ipso facto, and the letter from John Paul II doesn’t say one way or the other whether Lefebvre is excommunicated ipso facto or because of a formal excommunicaton. The link you posted doesn’t seem to me to be a formal excommunication (although, of course, the pope does refer to the excommunication). It seems to me to imply that from the moment Lefebvre performed the illegal ceremony he was excommunicated.

 

[SFD]

Heresy as a breach of Canon law can indeed be changed, upped, downed, whatever. Heresy in the internal forum does not put one outside of the church, and, as a matter of fact not all doctrines come under the penalty of heresyin the law of the Church.

Heresy is not a “penalty”…you are so loose with your terms…it’s almost unbelievable.

So, Bellarmine was a better theologian than Caejetan? He had his religious order behind him pushing for his Doctorate and for his Crown of Sanctity. That doesn’t mean he knew any more than anyone else. As a matter of fact, on this issue, I think he didn’t know what he was talking about.

I’ll let this stand as is…it needs no comment from me.

…As a lamp placed on a candlestick to give light to all that are in the house, he illuminated by word and deed Catholics and those straying from the unity of the Church; as a star in the firmament of the sky he laid bare the truth which he promoted above all else to all men of good will “by the magnificent rays of his knowledge, rays as wide as they were high, by the splendour of his outstanding and brilliant genius”; the first apologist not only of his own age but of subsequent ages as well, by the strenuous defence of the Catholic dogmas that he took upon himself he commended himself to the memory and admiration of all those who follow the Church of Christ with genuine love. Accordingly Bellarmine even up to this age has enjoyed with the most famous men of the Church, and especially writers, as many as have flourished, so great authority that already he has been regarded and reverently invoked by them as a doctor of the Church. On this matter let it here suffice for Us to mention the saints who on account of their eminent learning conjoined with heroic sanctity have already been declared doctors of the Universal Church; we speak especially of Saint Peter Canisius, of Saint Francis de Sales, of Saint Alphonsus Maria de Liguori. But there have been other saints, blesseds, venerables, Servants of God as well, whose high opinion of Bellarmine’s learning and knowledge is attested by unambiguous evidence.

No wonder then that many ardently desire truly to hail St Robert as a Doctor of the Church. That is a desire and wish fostered not only by those who share common principles of living with him in the Society of Jesus which has continually and everywhere served well the cause of promoting and defending the Catholic Faith, but also by the most illustrious men from all the ranks of the Church’s hierarchy. For the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church and nearly all the Archbishops and bishops of the whole world, as well as the superiors of the religious communities, the officers of the Catholic universities, and lastly very many other illustrious men support such desires. Wherefore we have deemed it opportune to commit the matter of so great importance as a wish and earnest desire to the Sacred Roman Congregation for the protection of Rites. This Congregation by Our Special Mandate delegated the most eminent and reverend men to examine the matter: Alexius Henricus Lépicier, titular Cardinal of St Susanna of the Holy Roman Church, Francis Ehrle, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, deacon of St Caesareus in Palatio.

So having sought and obtained the separate verdicts of these cardinals and even had them printed, the only thing that remained was to ask those in charge of the Congregation of Sacred Rites whether, all things being considered that are usually required in a Doctor of the Universal Church, they thought it was possible to proceed to the declaration of St Robert Bellarmine as a Doctor of the Universal Church. In an ordinary meeting on the fourth day of August just passed convened in the Vatican, after a due account of the matter had been given by our beloved son, the relater of the cause, Cajetan Bisleti, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church in charge of the Congregation of Sacred Rites declared with unanimous consent their affirmative opinion.

Wherefore, having listened also on all these [matters] to our beloved son, Promoter general of the Holy Faith on the sixth day of August of this year, We, yielding of our own accord and gladly to the wishes of so many and so great proposers that have been laid before Us, do by the tenor of these presents and in virtue of our own certain knowledge and mature deliberation establish and declare St Robert Bellarmine Bishop, Confessor, Doctor of the Universal Church; we decree therefore that the Mass and Office under the Double Minor rite, which have been assigned to the feast day of the same Saint on 13 May every year, be extended by Our authority from now on to the universal Church. Whatever other Apostolic constitutions and ordinances may have effect to the contrary are not to impede this. We decree the present letters ever to be and to remain established, valid and in effect: and to receive and obtain fully and unimpaired their effects; and that it is thus rightly to be judged and defined that if anything with regard to these matters should happen to be attempted differently = contrary to what we have decreed] by anyone, of whatever authority, whether knowingly or in ignorance, that would be from now on invalid and to no avail.

Given at Rome at St Peter’s, under the ring of the Fisherman, on the 17th day of September, in the year 1931, the tenth of our pontificate.Providentissimus Deus - AAS 23 (1931) 433-438 Acts of Pius XI

Saint Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal of the Roman Church, of the Society of Jesus, is Declared Doctor of the Universal Church.