St. Robert Bellarmine and the Pope-Heretic Question

[SFD]

From the thread, “Archbishop Lefebvre”, Post #255:

SFD:

itsjustdave:

I can answer the questions if you like, but it seems a departure from the theme of the thread. It would be better to take it to another thread that discusses the “suspicion of heresy” charged against John Paul II by Lefebvrists, contrary to traditional Catholicism as cited by St. Robert Bellarmine, which views it impossible for the pope to be a heretic.

Dave,

If you read Bellarmine, he does not say that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a pope to fall into heresy. He says it is NOT a certainty. That’s why he goes on to treat the pope-heretic question.

He goes on to say that if a pope would fall into heresy, he would cease to be pope…and for that reason and that reason only…he may be judged by the Church.

"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.’*

SFD

Itsjustdave,

St. Robert Bellarmine believed that a true Pope could never fall into heresy. He taught this. However, he did not hold it as theologically CERTAIN. That is why he went on to treat the pope-heretic question.

He goes on to say that if a pope would fall into heresy, he would cease to be pope…and for that reason and that reason only…he may be judged by the Church. The Church is not judging a Pope…it would be judging a Heretic. The First See is judged by no one.

SFD

 

[pnewton]

He goes on to say that if a pope would fall into heresy, he would cease to be pope…and for that reason and that reason only…he may be judged by the Church. The Church is not judging a Pope…it would be judging a Heretic. The First See is judged by no one.

So one can never judge a Pope, if a pope falls into heresy (as determined or* judged* by ???), he is no longer Pope so the Church is only judging a hereitc? I do not care who said this. This is clearly circular reasoning. The illogic of the situation is probably why he believed it could not happen.

 

[SFD]

So one can never judge a Pope, if a pope falls into heresy (as determined or* judged* by ???), he is no longer Pope so the Church is only judging a hereitc? I do not care who said this. This is clearly circular reasoning. The illogic of the situation is probably why he believed it could not happen.

St. Robert Bellarmine, a Doctor of the Universal Church, using circular reasoning? Interesting observation, Mr. Newton.

SFD

 

[pnewton]

St. Robert Bellarmine, a Doctor of the Universal Church, using circular reasoning? Interesting observation, Mr. Newton.

SFD

Thank you. But rather than meaning it as a criticism or that some one with far more intelligence than me did not recoginize the circular nature, I think it explains well why he was hesitant to believe that a Pope could be a heretic.

 

[SFD]

Thank you. But rather than meaning it as a criticism or that some one with far more intelligence than me did not recoginize the circular nature, I think it explains well why he was hesitant to believe that a Pope could be a heretic.

pnewton,

But St Robert also realised it was not theologically certain. That’s why he went on to treat the question. Note too, that he says the following;

“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…”

SFD

 

[itsjustdave1988]

St. Robert Bellarmine believed that a true Pope could never fall into heresy. He taught this. However, he did not hold it as theologically CERTAIN.

“Theologically certain” is a theological note which demands Catholic assent under penalty of sin. I never stated that this was sententia certa, but instead stated that St. Robert Bellarmine called it “most common and probable.” De Romano Pontifice, book 4, chapter VI]

Earlier, in book 2 of De Romano Pontifice, St. Robert argued against the theological opinion of Cardinal Cajetan. In understanding this argument against Cajetan, one must keep in mind that St. Robert himself believed it most probable that no pope could be a heretic. He correctly stated that it did not raise to the the theological level of “certain”, which is binding upon all Catholics, but still believed and affirmed it most probable, theologically speaking.

Consequently, even sedevacantists admit that St. Robert held the view that the pope could not be a heretic, but choose to disagee with St. Robert’s traditional view.

St. Robert was right in drawing this conclusion in Book 4, while he was also right in refuting Cardinal Cajetan’s view in Book 2. This is the traditional Catholic view. That the pope cannot be a heretic was the most common and probable theological conclusion during St. Robert’s day, even though it remains theology, not doctrine. Traditional theology of this Doctor of Catholicism, in my view, is more convincing than the modern Neo-“traditionalist” rejection of St. Robert’s view.

What St. Robert argue in Book 2 should be understood in the context of what he himself affirmed as “most probable” Catholic theology. To do otherwise lacks integrity.

In book 2, St. Robert disagreed with Cardinal Cajetan, who claimed that even if the pope had become a manifest heretic, he was not ipso facto deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. St. Robert disagreed. He concluded rightly that he was ipso facto deposted, and that Cajetan had erred. However, to suggest that what St. Robert meant in Book 2 was that the pope could possibly be a heretic is untenable because it conflicts with what he concluded as “most probable” in Book 4.

Those who claim allegiance to St. Robert’s traditional theology ought to know better than to quote what he said in Book 2 as if it supported a conclusion contrary to what he said in Book 4.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

pnewton,

But St Robert also realised it was not theologically certain. That’s why he went on to treat the question. Note too, that he says the following;

I disagree. You mistake what “certain” means as a theological not, and what “most probable” means. You also err in the order in which he treats this discussion his texts. He discussed the argument with Cajetan in Book 2, but in LATER in Book 4 is where he concluded that it was impossible that the pope can become a heretic, describing this as “most probable,” theologically speaking.

In the final analysis, those who quote from St. Robert as though he believed the pope could become a heretic either lack scholastic rigor or scholastic integrity.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

According to Bishop Vincent Gasser, the teaching from De Pontifice Romano, book 4, ch. 6, concluding that it is impossible for the pope to become a heretic is called by St. Robert Bellarmine, “most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion”. *Official Relatio *delivered before the reverend Fathers of the First Vatican Council on 11 July 1870].

 

[SFD]

I disagree. You mistake what “certain” means as a theological not, and what “most probable” means. You also err in the order in which he treats this discussion his texts. He discussed the argument with Cajetan in Book 2, but in LATER in Book 4 is where he concluded that it was impossible that the pope can become a heretic, describing this as “most probable,” theologically speaking.

Dave,

1. Bellarmine DID NOTclassify this as CERTAIN. Do you agree?

In the final analysis, those who quote from St. Robert as though he believed the pope could become a heretic either lack scholastic rigor or scholastic integrity.

I agree, but that’s why I stated exactly that…he believed it impossible…but he WOULD NOT go so far as to say it was certain. That’s why he treated the question. I believe both Billot and Cano also held this view. They taught as Bellarmine did, and also held the “fifth opinion”.

"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.’*

SFD

 

[SFD]

According to Bishop Vincent Gasser, in the Official Relatio delivered before the reverend Fathers of the First Vatican Council on 11 July 1870, the teaching from De Pontifice Romano, book 2, concluding that it is impossible for the pope to become a heretic is called by St. Robert Bellarmine, “most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion”.

Those claiming allegience to this traditional view, in my view, are more authentically “traditional” than those rejecting St. Robert’s teaching.

Dave,

I agree. In the spirit of Christian humility we should not go against the mind of any Doctor of the Universal Church without very grave reasons.

All this means is that we should rather hold that a manifest heretic, at the time of his election, is a non-Catholic. As such, he is not valid matter for the papacy.

None of this means that a pope could never fall into heresy. This is NOT given the “note” theologically certain. I agree we should hold Bellarmine’s position if at all possible and not claim that he believed it possible.

Here’s a question for you Dave, can a Pope teach Heresy?

SFD

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Dave,

1. Bellarmine DID NOTclassify this as CERTAIN. Do you agree?

According to Bishop Gasser, the most prominent theologian of the First Vatican Council, from the official relatio he presented to Vatican I, Bellarmine called it “Certain”, which to be precise differs from the theological note: “Theologically Certain.”

According to *On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them, *by Fr. Sixtus Cartechinis, S.J. (Rome, 1951), the two theological notes are described in the following manner:

THEOLOGICALLY CERTAIN: also called a “dogmatic fact,” is a truth logically following from one proposition which is Divinely revealed and another which is historically certain. Example given: Legitimacy of Pope Pius XI. The effect of denial is a mortal sin against faith.**

CERTAIN**: A truth unanimously held by all schools of theologians which is derived from revealed truth, but by more than one step of reasoning. Example given: The true and strict causality of the sacraments. The effect of denial is usually, mortal sin of temerity.

So, I agree that Bellarmine did not conclude it to be “theologically certain,” but instead concluded it was “certain.”

So what does that mean? The effect of denying a teaching that is “certain” is usually mortal sin of temerity, because such a denial constitutes a proposition that all theological schools of Catholicism have erred on such a matter. While this is not impossible, it is contrary to an extremely weighty presumption.

Some claiming allegiance to Catholic tradition have quoted from St. Robert, yet reject his teaching that it is impossible that the pope can be a heretic citing that it lacks the theological note of “theologically certain,” under the assumption that it is OK to reject a teaching that is “certain.” Yet, that’s a rather UNtraditional opinion.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… Here’s a question for you Dave, can a Pope teach Heresy?

No. Not as pope. Nor can he pertinaciously believe heresy.

St. Robert Bellarmine: "the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith." (De Pontifice Romano, Bk 4, ch. 6)

To conclude otherwise, I believe, is a mortal sin of temerity, because the above teaching is a truth unanimously held by all schools of theologians which is derived from revealed truth, also known as “certain.”

 

[SFD]

No. Not as pope. Nor can he pertinaciously believe heresy.

St. Robert Bellarmine: "the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith." (De Pontifice Romano, Bk 4, ch. 6)

To conclude otherwise, I believe, is a mortal sin of temerity, because the above teaching is a truth unanimously held by all schools of theologians which is derived from revealed truth, also known as “certain.”

Dave,

Do you have a source for this. Where is this classified as “theolocically certain” and the “censure” for it indicated.

SFD

 

[SFD]

“Theologically certain” is a theological note which demands Catholic assent under penalty of sin. I never stated that this was sententia certa, but instead stated that St. Robert Bellarmine called it “most common and probable.” De Romano Pontifice, book 4, chapter VI]

So it is not Certain. It was Probable. This is what de Silveira says.

Earlier, in book 2 of De Romano Pontifice, St. Robert argued against the theological opinion of Cardinal Cajetan. In understanding this argument against Cajetan, one must keep in mind that St. Robert himself believed it most probable that no pope could be a heretic. He correctly stated that it did not raise to the the theological level of “certain”, which is binding upon all Catholics, but still believed and affirmed it most probable, theologically speaking.

This is the 4th opinion. Cajetan’s view.

Consequently, even sedevacantists admit that St. Robert held the view that the pope could not be a heretic, but choose to disagee with St. Robert’s traditional view.

Actually, many do hold this view.

St. Robert was right in drawing this conclusion in Book 4, while he was also right in refuting Cardinal Cajetan’s view in Book 2. This is the traditional Catholic view. That the pope cannot be a heretic was the most common and probable theological conclusion during St. Robert’s day, even though it remains theology, not doctrine. Traditional theology of this Doctor of Catholicism, in my view, is more convincing than the modern Neo-“traditionalist” rejection of St. Robert’s view.

What St. Robert argue in Book 2 should be understood in the context of what he himself affirmed as “most probable” Catholic theology. To do otherwise lacks integrity.

In book 2, St. Robert disagreed with Cardinal Cajetan, who claimed that even if the pope had become a manifest heretic, he was not ipso facto deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. St. Robert disagreed. He concluded rightly that he was ipso facto deposted, and that Cajetan had erred. However, to suggest that what St. Robert meant in Book 2 was that the pope could possibly be a heretic is untenable because it conflicts with what he concluded as “most probable” in Book 4.

Again, this is all about the 4th opinion. Cajetan’s view.

Those who claim allegiance to St. Robert’s traditional theology ought to know better than to quote what he said in Book 2 as if it supported a conclusion contrary to what he said in Book 4

No, we choose not to ignore the 5th opinion, as you have, which St. Robert says is the true one:

"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.’*

Are you saying it is a mortal sin to hold the 5th opinion?

SFD

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Dave,

Do you have a source for this. Where is this classified as “theolocically certain” and the “censure” for it indicated.

SFD

I don’t think you are reading what I wrote very carefully. Go back and re-read what I wrote above.

So it is not Certain. It was Probable. This is what de Silveira says.

It is not “theologically certain,” but is called “certain” by St. Robert himself according to the official relatio presented by Bishop Vincent Gasser to the fathers of the First Vatican Council, prior to the vote on *Paster Aeternus. *

I don’t have Book 4 of De Pontifice Romano, so I have to trust Bishop Gasser on this, who was considered the most prominent theologian at Vatican I. Nonetheless, the official relatio is a pretty weighty source.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Are you saying it is a mortal sin to hold the 5th opinion?

If you, like St. Robert, hold the 5th opinion while simultaneously concluding as St. Robert did in Book 4 that it is impossible for the pope to be a heretic, then you and I would hold the same opinion. Because, as I’ve already stated, I hold to what St. Robert concludes in BOTH book 2 and book 4.

As for it being a mortal sin to reject a teaching that is “certain”, yes, that is a mortal sin of temerity according to the pre-Vatican II sources I already cited above.

 

[AlexV]

St. Robert isn’t infallible.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

St. Robert isn’t infallible.

I never claimed he was. I do find it absurd that Lefebvrists and Sedevacantists alike affirm the authority of St. Robert’s traditional teaching in one breath, while denying his traditional teaching in another.

It seems to me the “mortal sin against faith” for those rejecting that which is “theologically certain” is just as “mortal” as the “mortal sin of temerity” for those who reject teachings having the theological note of “certain.”

 

[AlexV]

You’re certainly quick to assert mortal sinfulness. All I said was Bellarmine isn’t infallible.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

You’re certainly quick to assert mortal sinfulness. All I said was Bellarmine isn’t infallible.

I don’t see how your random (name removed by moderator)ut pertains to the discussion in this thread. The issue being discussed has to do with the level of theological certainty pertaining to Bellarmine’s teaching, according to St. Robert himself, and by extension, the level of assent demanded by it. His infalliblity or lack of it is irrelevant.