St. Robert Bellarmine and the Pope-Heretic Question

[cam100]

Too many people claim expertise in liturgy and/or theology who can’t read the sources in the original languages.

So-called theology and liturgy scholars who don’t know Latin and Greek (even Hebrew, for some work) must rely on translations to do their work. Such work is thus always suspect.

The ability to read another language does not make one an expert at translation. Are we to assume that your translation skills are better than other translators, who may be professional translators with years of experience, or even teams of translators? Even if you are a professional translator, how do we know you’re better than most? To assume that other translations are inferior compared to your own seems quite unfounded and egotistical.

 

[AlexV]

Like so many here, you apparently miss the point.

It’s not about MY translations. It’s about being “expert” in an area where you have to RELY on translations, any translations, no matter how good.

NO translation is equal to the original. No one can be truly expert without access to the ORIGINAL text. Part of the crisis in the Church today is how many alleged experts don’t know the language of their own Rite, let alone the classical languages that are the original languages of the sources in both liturgy and theology.

You can get a degree in liturgy without knowing Latin. Which is why most mainstream academics look rather askance at such people. You can’t be an expert in liturgy or theology if you don’t know the original languages.

Side note: ICEL is notoriously filled with “experts” from every field EXCEPT Classics. The result? Translations of liturgical texts that Latin I students can point out the omissions and problems with.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I am quoting the Theologians themselves…They explain the mind of the Church.

I understand, and while it is admirable to seek the teaching from Catholic theologians, the teaching of the theologians (the Taught Church) is subordinate to the teaching of the living magisterium, and cannot be cited to reject the teaching from the living magisterium (the Teaching Church). St. Thomas Aquinas affirmed, “We must abide rather by the pope’s judgment than by the opinion of any of the theologians” (Questiones Quodlibetales, IX:8).

It must be admitted that the theologians are still part of the Taught Church (insofar as they are not also bishops in communion with the Roman Pontiff), and as such are not vested with magisterial authority, as are the Teaching Church.

While it is temerious to reject the unanimous consent of the theological schools, that is only true insofar as what they teach remains the mind of the Teaching Church.

Remember that…

"The thought of the Church is essentially a traditional thought, and the living magisterium…prepares to give to immutable truth a new expression which shall be in harmony with the circumstances of the day and within reach of contemporary minds. Revealed truth has sometimes found definitive formulas from the earliest times; then the living magisterium has only had to preserve and explain them and put them in circulation. Sometimes attempts have been made to express this truth, without success…it has [sometimes] been distorted so as to be scarcely recognizable, so closely mingled with error that it becomes difficult to separate them. When the Church studies the ancient monuments of her faith she casts over the past the reflection of her living and present thought and by some sympathy of the truth of today with that of yesterday she succeeds in recognizing through the obscurities and inaccuracies of ancient formulas the portions of traditional truth, even when they are mixed with error. The Church is also (as regards religious and moral doctrines) the best interpreter of truly traditional documents; she recognizes as by instinct what ***belongs to the current of her living thought and distinguishes it from the foreign elements which may have become mixed with it in the course of centuries. ***

The living magisterium, therefore, makes extensive use of documents of the past, but it does so while judging and interpreting, gladly finding in them its present thought, but likewise, when needful, distinguishing its present thought from what is traditional only in appearance.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Tradition and Living Magisterium

Theologians, past and current do indeed explain the mind of the Church. But the magisterium is living, and its present thought is the authentic mind of the Church.

Papal teaching, even if merely ordinary, is authoritative and demands consent according to the mind and will of the Pontiff. If the Supreme Pontiff purposely proclaims judgment on a matter even if contrary to the teaching of the theological schools (or the Taught Church), then it is the schools who must amend their teaching, not the Pontiff.

There is an example I’m thinking of in which the teaching of the theological schools was contrary to that which Pius XII later taught magisterially. After he promulgated his judgment on the matter, the theological schools were obliged, based upon the mind and will of the Roman Pontiff, to amend their prior view.

I’ll have to look up the exact example explained according to John Ford, S.J. and Gerard Kelly, S.J. in their well-known theology manual in two volumes, Contemporary Moral Theology (1959).

 

[cam100]

Like so many here, you apparently miss the point.

It’s not about MY translations. It’s about being “expert” in an area where you have to RELY on translations, any translations, no matter how good.

NO translation is equal to the original. No one can be truly expert without access to the ORIGINAL text. Part of the crisis in the Church today is how many alleged experts don’t know the language of their own Rite, let alone the classical languages that are the original languages of the sources in both liturgy and theology.

You can get a degree in liturgy without knowing Latin. Which is why most mainstream academics look rather askance at such people. You can’t be an expert in liturgy or theology if you don’t know the original languages.

Side note: ICEL is notoriously filled with “experts” from every field EXCEPT Classics. The result? Translations of liturgical texts that Latin I students can point out the omissions and problems with.

Actually, I think you missed my point, which was that ALL of us have to rely on translations, whether we do the translation ourselves in our head or use another person’s translation. If we do it ourselves, the translation is only as good as our skill. “Knowing Latin” doesn’t make our understanding of a Latin text any better than text which was translated by someone else from Latin.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I dispute that claim of “fact”.

I figured you did. But if St. Robert is right [and I think he is], then it is impossible for the duly elected pope to teach heresy or promulgate universal discipline which is dangerous to the faith. If this is the case, then the dispute over whether a pope is duly elected ought to be based upon history before and after the election of Cardinal Roncalli, using principles common to the study of history. It should not be based upon an a priori and subjective conclusion of the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of what he taught *well after his election was universally accepted, *since this is the ultimate question under dispute.

Reason dictates we build upon accepted premises to come to a greater understanding of that which is disputed, not base our conclusions upon what is disputed.

Nobody ever became an “antipope” due to post-election heresy in the entire history of the Church. Instead, it was always based upon a perceived defect in the actual election or a lack of universal acceptance immediately following the election.

Consequently, my approach is to build upon accepted premises. I first need to discern who the duly elected Pontiff is, based upon the historical facts surrounding the election itself, whether there was a defect in the papal election or some dispute with regard to universal acceptance immediately following the election.

Once I determine through discernment of the facts of history who the duly elected pontiff is, then I must submit to him according to his mind and will with regard to what he now and in the future authentically promulgates as dogma, doctrine, and discipline.

Until a successor Roman Pontiff condemns a prior Roman Pontiff, then there can be no certainty that the prior Roman Pontiff taught heresy or was an “antipope.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

SPD:

I am not appealing to the first sources (Scripture and the Church Fathers) and then “doing my own theology”.

I think where you may be “doing your own theology” is with respect to what Vatican II and the post-Vatican II popes teach. Perhaps I’m mistaken, but do you hold to the majority of theological schools on the proper interpretation of Vatican II and the subsequent pontiffs?

 

[SFD]

I understand what he discussed in Bk 2. But later he “corrects himself” according to Bp. Gasser’s commentary, calling the opinion of Pighius regarding the impossibility of the pope falling into heresy, “certain.”

Bp. Gasser explicitly stated that it is the opinion of Pighius (cited in Bk 4, ch. 6) “which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion.” [Vatican 1, Official Reltio of Bishop Vincent Gasser

, delivered before the reverend Fathers of the First Vatican Council on 11 July 1870]

Now, I don’t know if Bp. Gasser is quoting or interpreting Bellearmin here. What do you think he means “adduces in the fourth place?” I think he is referring to what he states in Bk 4, ch. 6 regarding Pighius’ proposition, being “certain,” at least with regarding “the supreme Pontiff is not able to err as Pontiff.”

While I still haven’t received all of Bk 4, ch. 6, I do know that it is entitled: "De pontifice ut est particularis quaedam persona."**

I’m not an expert in Latin, but I think, based upon its title, the chapter is St. Robert’s defense or proof of the proposition of Pighius regarding the Pontiff, not only as pontiff, but even as a particular person. It’s not clear what Bp. Gasser means by “fourth place,” but isn’t it Bk 4, ch. 6 where Bellarmine “adduces” (ie. proves) Pighius’ opinion?

Dave,

This is incorrect. You are confusing Book 4 of De Romano Pontifice with Chapter 4 of the Council. That is certain. Bp. Gasser is contrasting them in his relatio.

Do you have the entire text of Chapter IV, On the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff , which contains the relatio of Bp. Gasser?

I have access to the full text here.

SFD

 

[pnewton]

Like so many here, you apparently miss the point.

Side note: ICEL is notoriously filled with “experts” from every field EXCEPT Classics. The result? Translations of liturgical texts that Latin I students can point out the omissions and problems with.

That is interesting. Indeed that might be one of the few areas where you could provide an expert opinion, should the topic come up. For the record, I thought you made yourself clear earlier, when you did not hold yourself as an expert in theology, but just challenged others that do.

However, for the sake of peace, and so that “CalmDown” will cease his disgusting analogy, can we all move on. I was kind of enjoying the rest of the exchange you guys were having.

We all know that no one posts in forums like this to hold themselves as experts. If I want an expert, I will read Scott Hahn or Peter Kreeft or (best of all) Pope Benedict. We all step into this arena with only the credentials we convey through the posts.

Personally, I just come here for the jokes.

 

[AlexV]

““Knowing Latin” doesn’t make our understanding of a Latin text any better than text which was translated by someone else from Latin.”

No serious academic would accept this. You’re denigrating knowledge of the original languages.

Obviously, knowledge of the ORIGINAL LANGUAGES give you a better understanding of the text than a passage of something someone else translated.

 

[SFD]

I understand, and while it is admirable to seek the teaching from Catholic theologians, the teaching of the theologians (the Taught Church) is subordinate to the teaching of the living magisterium, and cannot be cited to reject the teaching from the living magisterium (the Teaching Church). St. Thomas Aquinas affirmed, “We must abide rather by the pope’s judgment than by the opinion of any of the theologians” (Questiones Quodlibetales, IX:8).

It must be admitted that the theologians are still part of the Taught Church (insofar as they are not also bishops in communion with the Roman Pontiff), and as such are not vested with magisterial authority, as are the Teaching Church.

While it is temerious to reject the unanimous consent of the theological schools, that is only true insofar as what they teach remains the mind of the Teaching Church.

Remember that…

Theologians, past and current do indeed explain the mind of the Church. But the magisterium is living, and its present thought is the authentic mind of the Church.

Papal teaching, even if merely ordinary, is authoritative and demands consent according to the mind and will of the Pontiff. If the Supreme Pontiff purposely proclaims judgment on a matter even if contrary to the teaching of the theological schools (or the Taught Church), then it is the schools who must amend their teaching, not the Pontiff.

There is an example I’m thinking of in which the teaching of the theological schools was contrary to that which Pius XII later taught magisterially. After he promulgated his judgment on the matter, the theological schools were obliged, based upon the mind and will of the Roman Pontiff, to amend their prior view.

I’ll have to look up the exact example explained according to John Ford, S.J. and Gerard Kelly, S.J. in their well-known theology manual in two volumes, Contemporary Moral Theology (1959).

Dave,

Of course, the proximate rule of Faith for a Catholic is the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium. All of the Manualists teach this. Are you suggesting we follow the preaching of the Bishops today? You can’t pick and choose which ones either.
Van Noort Christs Church:

The proximate rule of faith, from which the faithful, one and all, are bound to accept their faith and in accordance with which they are to regulate it, is the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium.(27) The following assertions concern the proximate rule of faith.

1. The Church’s preaching was established by Christ Himself as the rule of faith. This can be proved from Matthew 28:19—20 and Mark 16:15—16; the command to teach all nations certainly implies a corresponding duty on the part of the nations to believe whatever the apostles and their successors teach, On the other hand, there is no notice anywhere of Christ’s having commanded the apostles to give the people the doctrine of salvation in writing, and never did He command the faithful as a whole to seek their faith in the Bible.(28)
2. The Church’s preaching is a rule of faith which is nicely accommodated to people’s needs. For (a) it is an easy rule, one that can be observed by all alike, even the uneducated and unlettered. What could be easier than to give ear to a magisterium that is always at hand and always preaching? (b) It is a safe rule, for the Church’s teaching office is infallible in safeguarding and presenting Christ’s doctrine. (c) It is a living rule, in accordance with which it is possible in any age to explain the meaning of doctrines and to put an end to controversies.

Do you see the problem?

Btw, about Gerard Kelly, S.J. ; That name sound familiar…didn’t he write a few books on the liturgy? The Mass of the Future is one of them, I believe.

SFD

 

[SFD]

I think where you may be “doing your own theology” is with respect to what Vatican II and the post-Vatican II popes teach. Perhaps I’m mistaken, but do you hold to the majority of theological schools on the proper interpretation of Vatican II and the subsequent pontiffs?

Dave,

Does this take presidence over the teachings of the popes? There seems to be some serious conflict as to the “proper intrepretation” of the Council. What exactly are the majority of theological schools teaching?

My understanding was always that Quanta Cura was an ex cathedra teaching…what are they teaching about it today?

SFD

 

[Arnobius]

Dave,

Does this take presidence over the teachings of the popes? There seems to be some serious conflict as to the “proper intrepretation” of the Council. What exactly are the majority of theological schools teaching?

My understanding was always that Quanta Cura was an ex cathedra teaching…what are they teaching about it today?

SFD

The elements of Quanta Cura as I see it condemn (and this is a rapid summary, so if I missed one it is not by design):

• Secularism forcibly imposing on the Church
• Denying the religious freedom of the Church
• Schools entirely secularized
• Subjecting the authority of the Pope to the State
• Forbidding the authority of Church anathemas by the State
• Denial of the divine authority of the Church

These are things the Vatican II era popes (John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI) have also spoken out against. Indeed, secularism in the world is a major theme of Benedict XVI

 

[SFD]

The elements of Quanta Cura as I see it condemn (and this is a rapid summary, so if I missed one it is not by design):

• Secularism forcibly imposing on the Church
• Denying the religious freedom of the Church
• Schools entirely secularized
• Subjecting the authority of the Pope to the State
• Forbidding the authority of Church anathemas by the State
• Denial of the divine authority of the Church

These are things the Vatican II era popes (John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI) have also spoken out against. Indeed, secularism in the world is a major theme of Benedict XVI

Arnobius,

I was referring the Syllabus of Errors condemnation of religious liberty, actually.

You might want to check Denzinger 1777 where condemned proposition 77 is located:
Syllabus of Errors:

1. “In this age of ours it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever.”

Also check Denzinger 1690 where the infallible encyclical Quanta Cura of the same pope also unequivocally condemns the following:

“… that erroneous opinion especially fatal to the Catholic Church and to the salvation of souls, called by our predecessor of recent memory, Gregory XVI, insanity: namely, that ‘liberty of conscience and of worship is the proper right of every man…’”

Of course, to prove that religious liberty is heretical in the strictest sense of that term it is necessary to establish that it is contrary to divine revelation, and this is explicitly confirmed in the Code of Canon Law (Canon 1322/2) which says that:

“… all men are bound by divine law to embrace the true Church of God.”

SFD

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

…
However, for the sake of peace, and so that “CalmDown” will cease his disgusting analogy, can we all move on. I was kind of enjoying the rest of the exchange you guys were having.

Yeah, it was rather discusting wasn’t it? Sorry about that, but it seemed an accurate description of what I was observing, and I’m making a fool of myself again when I said I’d shut my big mouth, aren’t I?

Arghh!

Personally, I just come here for the jokes.

I wish I knew some latin jokes, but that “the Pope can be a heretic” thing sounds pretty “joke-like” to me. It makes me laugh in any case. I’ll be shutting-up “shutting-up” now. Good heavens, I’m an idiot…

 

[Arnobius]

Arnobius,

I was referring the Syllabus of Errors condemnation of religious liberty, actually.

Ah, then there is more than one document by this title. My mistake. I thought you were referring to:
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanta.htm

You might want to check Denzinger 1777 where condemned proposition 77 is located:

Also check Denzinger 1690 where the infallible encyclical Quanta Cura of the same pope also unequivocally condemns the following:

Of course, to prove that religious liberty is heretical in the strictest sense of that term it is necessary to establish that it is contrary to divine revelation, and this is explicitly confirmed in the Code of Canon Law (Canon 1322/2) which says that:

SFD

We need to make sure we do not interpret the canons and Denzinger in a Feeneyite interpretation however

 

[SFD]

…that “the Pope can be a heretic” thing sounds pretty “joke-like” to me. It makes me laugh in any case. I’ll be shutting-up “shutting-up” now. Good heavens, I’m an idiot…

Yes, I agree…to the latter statement. St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Universal Church, examined the Pope-Heretic question, theologians of great weight had opinions on it…but it sounds like a “joke” to you. Interesting observation.

SFD

 

[SFD]

Ah, then there is more than one document by this title. My mistake. I thought you were referring to:
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanta.htm

We need to make sure we do not interpret the canons and Denzinger in a Feeneyite interpretation however

Arnobius,

The Syllabus of Errors was issued with the Papal Bull Quanta Cura on December 8, 1864. Religious liberty was condemned in both documents.

As far as the Feeneyite admonition goes, I believe the Feenyites almost always reject all Popes and theologians, if they don’t teach what they themselves have worked out from reading Holy Scripture and The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent.

SFD

 

[pnewton]

I’ll be shutting-up “shutting-up” now. Good heavens, I’m an idiot…

I seems SFD agrees with you. Don’t worry. You are in great company, namely me. I, too, have been called stupid by sedevacantists here. For those that know me, it gives me one more thing to point at to show how wrong their opinions can be. Not that I know of any Catholics that give them any serious credence.

 

[SFD]

I seems SFD agrees with you. Don’t worry. You are in great company, namely me. I, too, have been called stupid by sedevacantists here. For those that know me, it gives me one more thing to point at to show how wrong their opinions can be. Not that I know of any Catholics that give them any serious credence.

Dear Newton,

I have never called anyone “stupid” here nor anywhere else. I never called you “stupid” either, and you know that. You did make an observation strikingly similiar to the one that CalmDownWisWins had made. I merely pointed it out.

SFD

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
…that “the Pope can be a heretic” thing sounds pretty “joke-like” to me. It makes me laugh in any case. I’ll be shutting-up “shutting-up” now. Good heavens, I’m an idiot…

Yes, I agree…to the latter statement. St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Universal Church, examined the Pope-Heretic question, theologians of great weight had opinions on it…but it sounds like a “joke” to you. Interesting observation.

What is “joke-like” to me is not that the question has come up, but that any answer other than, “A Pope can’t, by definition, commit heresy, any more than the Church, by definition, can commit heresy.”

A person can certainly commit heresy, but the Pope qua Pope is simply prohibited from doing so by the Guarantor of truth.

I’m certainly not capable of teasing out the “legal” reasons why that would be so, but the “legalities” don’t make the fact proper, the fact demands that the legalities conform and confirm them.

If the legalities DON’T do that, then some new “legislation” needs to be written.