St. Robert Bellarmine and the Pope-Heretic Question

[Pax_et_Caritas]

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.

Now Dave, let’s not forget that you reject the teaching contained in a document issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith and signed by John Paul II The Great himself.

Which holds more authority, an opinion of a theologian, or an official document issued by the Church and approved by the Pope?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Now Dave, let’s not forget that you reject the teaching contained in a document issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith and signed by John Paul II The Great himself.

Which holds more authority, an opinion of a theologian, or an official document issued by the Church and approved by the Pope?

I accept the guidelines issued by the Pontifical Council according the mind and will of the CDF and the Roman Pontiff, which states that the anaphora “can” be considered valid, your misrepresentation of my beliefs notwithstanding.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Which holds more authority, an opinion of a theologian, or an official document issued by the Church and approved by the Pope?

Now, apply the above to the Vatican II documents, the editio typica of the Missale Romanum, the *Catechism of the Catholic Church, *and the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I accept the guidelines issued by the Pontifical Council according the mind and will of the CDF and the Roman Pontiff, which states that the anaphora “can” be considred valid, your misrepresentation of my beliefs notwithstanding.

Yes, it says it can be considered valid, which is what you reject. You think it lacks for necessary form, which means it is not valid.

Are you saying you agree with this document issued by the Congregation for the doctrine of Faith and signed by John Paul II The Great himself which says that a mass with no words of consecration can be considered valid? You agree that this mass can be considered valid?

On a related note, is it de fide or only theologically certain that the words of consecration are necessary for a valid consecration?

 

[Ron_Conte]

There is essentially no difference between certain and theologically certain, the terms are identical in meaning.

In my opinion, the Pope is entirely unable to fall into heresy, even personally and internally, because he is the seat of the Magisterium and because he holds the keys to the kingdom of heaven. If the one who holds the keys becomes corrupt, then the power pertaining to those keys is corrupted. But this is impossible because Christ guaranteed that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church.

 

[AlexV]

Dave is an amateur theologian who has a few pet issues he likes to trot out. They usually involve such rather vague areas of theology such as “negative infallibility” and “theological certainty”.

Bellarmine isn’t infallible. He is a Doctor of the Church, which is more a liturgical honor than anything else.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Yes, it says it can be considered valid, which is what you reject.

You only look foolish arguing with me about what I believe, since I am the most credible authority about **my **beliefs.

You asked me if I believed it to be valid. I don’t. Nor does the document require that I believe it to be valid. It says that I “can,” but does not say that I “must”. So, I don’t. That fact seems to keep zooming right past you.

The document provides “guidelines” (ie. disciplinary norm). I accept this disciplinary norm and act according to it.

Is it your thesis that this disciplinary norm contains a teaching that carries a theological note which is binding upon the faithful? If so, which one, and why?

 

[AlexV]

We’re not talking mere “discipline” (a favorite topic of some). We’re talking about something quite serious: the validity of an anaphora.

But I am glad we’re finally making distinctions between “can” and “must” (subjunctives in Latin). The language used to promulgate new liturgical books talks about "can"s and "could"s too, not "must"s.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

You only look foolish arguing with me about what I believe, since I am the most credible authority about my beliefs.

You asked me if I believed it to be valid. I don’t. Nor does the document require that I believe it to be valid. It says that I “can,” but does not say that I “must”. So, I don’t. That fact seems to keep zooming right past you.

The document doesn’t mention you at all; nor does it mention anyone else. The object of the documen is the “mass” itself.

The document states that the “mass” can be considered invalid.

Do you agree with this document in affirming that this “mass” can be considered invalid?

Obviously the answer is no, you don’t agree with this document which affirms that a “mass” with no words of consecration is valid. As such, you willfully reject the document issued by the Church.

Is it your thesis that this disciplinary norm contains a teaching that carries a theological note which is binding upon the faithful? If so, which one, and why?

Now this is getting funny. Aren’t you the one who repeatedly justifies all of the post Vatican II novelties by saying that Church is infallible in her disciplines?

You don’t want me to go searching through you old posts again, do you? I’m sure a quick google search would produce plenty of juicy quotes from you ridiculing a Traditionalist or two for objecting to a recent novelty, by claiming that the church is infallible in her disciplines.

 

[AlexV]

I know, Pax et Caritas, it’s amazing. Suddenly everything is fuzzy and different. How many lectures have we endured from Dave on his favorite topic of “negative infallibility”?

 

[SFD]

There is essentially no difference between certain and theologically certain, the terms are identical in meaning.

Ron,

This is incorrect. They are two distinct theological notes. The censures and accompaning remarks are different as well and make the distinction quite clearly.

In my opinion, the Pope is entirely unable to fall into heresy, even personally and internally, because he is the seat of the Magisterium and because he holds the keys to the kingdom of heaven. If the one who holds the keys becomes corrupt, then the power pertaining to those keys is corrupted. But this is impossible because Christ guaranteed that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church.

Which of the 5 theological opinions Bellarmine cited is this?

SFD

 

[itsjustdave1988]

There is essentially no difference between certain and theologically certain, the terms are identical in meaning.

The definitions I used were taken from *On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them, *by Fr. Sixtus Cartechinis, S.J. (Rome, 1951).

“Theologically certain” involves a certain fact connected with a dogma. Not more than one step of reasoning is involved. For example, Dogma: “Every duly elected pontiff is Peter’s successor;” Certain fact: Benedict XVI was duly elected pontiff; “theologically certain” conclusion: Benedict XVI is a successor of Peter.

The theological note of “certain” requires more “theology” to come to the conclusion, more than one step of reasoning, and is based upon the unanimous consent of theological schools.

That’s just my amateur understanding of it.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…Now this is getting funny. Aren’t you the one who repeatedly justifies all of the post Vatican II novelties by saying that Church is infallible in her disciplines?

Disciplinary infallibility is not my assertion, but Catholic teaching.

According to Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, Monsignor G. Van Noort S.T.D., (1957):

The Church’s infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain. By the term ‘general discipline of the Church’ are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church

If this guideline constitutes ecclesiastical law passed for the universal Church, then it is indeed infallible in the negative and indirect sense, and I would surely amend my belief. I would have to, if I am to hold fast to theologically certain teachings of the Catholic Church.

Are the guidelines of this Pontifical Council a law for the universal Church? It was my impression that it was a guideline which pertained to the Chaldean Church only.

Nonetheless, if anything was not well said, that is to be attributed to my ignorance. If I have written anything erroneous concerning Catholic teaching or discipline, I submit all to the judgment and correction of the Holy Roman Church.

 

[SFD]

SFD:

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.

Dave,

Now, back to the original topic:

Again, do you think it is a mortal sin to hold only the 5th opinion?

SFD

 

[SFD]

Disciplinary infallibility is not my assertion, but Catholic teaching.

According to Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, Monsignor G. Van Noort S.T.D., (1957):

If this guideline constitutes ecclesiastical law passed for the universal Church, then it is indeed infallible in the negative and indirect sense, and I would surely amend my belief. I would have to, if I am to hold fast to theologically certain teachings of the Catholic Church.

Agreed.
itsjustdave:

Are the guidelines of this Pontifical Council a law for the universal Church? It was my impression that it was a guideline which pertained to the Chaldean Church only.

Then you must also admit that the Latin Rite is similarily unprotected by this indirect infallibility or Disciplinary infallibility.

Nonetheless, if anything was not well said, that is to be attributed to my ignorance. If I have written anything erroneous concerning Catholic teaching or discipline, I submit all to the judgment and correction of the Holy Roman Church.

As well.

SFD

 

[SFD]

Dave is an amateur theologian who has a few pet issues he likes to trot out. They usually involve such rather vague areas of theology such as “negative infallibility” and “theological certainty”.

Bellarmine isn’t infallible. He is a Doctor of the Church, which is more a liturgical honor than anything else.

Alex,

Actually, Dave is just trying to get by in this crisis…and at least attempting to sit at the feet of the Theologians. You appear to be completely ignorant of the concepts the Infallibility of the Church, Papal Infallibility, the assent that must be give to other Church doctrines, that, while not de fide, nevertheless require your assent under the pain of mortal sin.

Dave has at least studied this material…and by your comments I’d say that you haven’t at all.

SFD

 

[AlexV]

Laughable. I’ve probably studied these issues academically more than any of you. I’m laughing not only at the assertion I’m ignorant, but also at how people grasp at straws and twist themselves into pretzels.

I also don’t throw around words like “infallibility” about everything under the sun, together with a healthy dose of “mortal sin” threats about everything under the sun. The Church is and always has been a bit more nuanced than the black and white dogmatism some on these fora seem to prefer.

 

[Arnobius]

Laughable. I’ve probably studied these issues academically more than any of you. I’m laughing not only at the assertion I’m ignorant, but also at how people grasp at straws and twist themselves into pretzels.

I also don’t throw around words like “infallibility” about everything under the sun, together with a healthy dose of “mortal sin” threats about everything under the sun. The Church is and always has been a bit more nuanced than the black and white dogmatism some on these fora seem to prefer.

True, you’re too busy throwing around the ad-homs to throw around theological terms

 

[AlexV]

Actually, the biggest ad hominem thrown around on these fora is the near-constant accusation of mortal sin/slander/schism that the amateur canonists and theologians toss around.

 

[SFD]

Laughable. I’ve probably studied these issues academically more than any of you. I’m laughing not only at the assertion I’m ignorant, but also at how people grasp at straws and twist themselves into pretzels.

I also don’t throw around words like “infallibility” about everything under the sun, together with a healthy dose of “mortal sin” threats about everything under the sun. The Church is and always has been a bit more nuanced than the black and white dogmatism some on these fora seem to prefer.

AlexV,

Okay, then tell us from where you learned all these “nuances”?

What Theology Manuals are you familiar with?

Which one did you do your studies from?

Actually, the biggest ad hominem thrown around on these fora is the near-constant accusation of mortal sin/slander/schism that the amateur canonists and theologians toss around.

I’ve accused no one here of this.

SFD