AlexV,I didn’t know you needed to provide “credentials” to be taken seriously here. But, for starters, I’m probably the only one on this thread who has actually read Bellarmine in his original Latin, and who can actually tackle the sources in both Latin and Greek and not really on “manuals” and translations of the Fathers and Doctors.
If you want to boast about knowing more than others, expect to be called on it.I didn’t know you needed to provide “credentials” to be taken seriously here. But, for starters, I’m probably the only one on this thread who has actually read Bellarmine in his original Latin, and who can actually tackle the sources in both Latin and Greek and not really on “manuals” and translations of the Fathers and Doctors.
A “Pope” (post-heresy) falling into “manifest heresy”, which would be objectively demonstrable as his denying some dogma of the Church, is the equivalent of a Pope (pre-heresy) dying.From the thread, “Archbishop Lefebvre”, Post #255:
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
Not a universal discipline, so it is not infallible. How did I know you were going to say that? So, in accord with your reasoning, you should have no problem with a Traditionalist claiming that the Novus Ordo Mass in English using the incorrect translation of “pro multis” is invalid, right? After all, when Rome approved the incorrectly translated liturgies, it only applied to the Western Rite, not the universal Church.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.
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.
I never said hold the 5th opinion was a sin. However, as I stated already, willfully denial of a teaching which has the theological note of “certain” is a mortal sin of temerity according to the pre-Vatican II source I already cited, 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.Dave,
Now, back to the original topic:
Again, do you think it is a mortal sin to hold only the 5th opinion?
SFD
No. Ecclesial law which governs the universal Church (binding everywhere) is infallible. Both the Latin and Eastern Rite are protected by this infallibility.Then you must also admit that the Latin Rite is similarily unprotected by this indirect infallibility or Disciplinary infallibility.
Dave,I never said hold the 5th opinion was a sin. However, as I stated already, willfully denial of a teaching which has the theological note of “certain” is a mortal sin of temerity according to the pre-Vatican II source I already cited, 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.
Have I not already stated this?
The question is, is the conclusion of St. Robert regarding the impossibility of the pope becoming a heretic have the theological note of “certain.” Apparently it is, according ot St. Robert. At least that’s what I gather from the official *relatio *of Vatican I explaining how Pastor Aeternus is to be properly understood.
Dave,No. Ecclesial law which governs the universal Church (binding everywhere) is infallible. Both the Latin and Eastern Rite are protected by this infallibility.
For example, the 1983 Code of Canon Law governs the universal Church (binding everywhere) for those in the Latin Rite. The Code of canons of Oriental Churchess (CEOO) similarly governs the universal Church (binding everywhere) for those within the Eastern Rite. The documents of Vatican II are universally binding.
It appears to me that those within the Lefevbre movement or sympathetic to them seem to deny traditional Catholic teaching regarding disciplinary infallibility, which is theologically certain. I cannot.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
Given it was not promulgated until 1969 and is officially known as the Missal of 1970, I find this questionable.In 1968, the first translation of the Ordo Missae in English appeared. It was published by Catholic Book Publishing Company and approved for use in the dioceses of the USA.
It had a translation of Eucharistic Prayer IV. The first line read,
“Father, you are the only God.”
That’s because the Latin those “experts” came up with him their Swiss hotel suite read, “Pater, tu es solus Deus.”
The books were released. With approval/promulgation. Within a year, a new version had to be published:
Pater, tu es unus Deus.
In other words, in 1968, the Arian heresy was published in an approved liturgical book, and filtered down through at least one major translation (English for the USA). It was corrected within a year after someone or someones caught it.
Dave would have us believe the first printing was somehow “infallible.” Nope, it was heretical.
Then you miss the point. Being able to read the original languages does not give you an advantage unless you have the proper understanding.We’re not living in Greek and Roman times, Arnobius.
As for “manuals”, I find it amazing that people are asking for “manuals” as a badge of identification for qualifications to post about theological matters on an internet forum. Manuals aren’t the sources. And it’s all about the sources.
Unfortunately, not many of St. Robert’s works are available in English. Given conflicting sources, the official relatio of the First Vatican Council presented by Bishop Vincent Gasser, known to all as among the most prominent theologians at the council, seems to me to be more authoritative with regard to this teaching being “certain” according to St. Robert.Dave,
Here is Fr. Joaquin Salaverri, S.J., presenting this opinion (the 1st opinion) as follows (emphasis mine):
“As a private person, can the Pope fall into heresy? The theologians dispute about this question. To us it seems more pious and more probable to admit that God will take care, by his Providence, that never will a Pope be a heretic”.
Are you missing a key distinction with respect to the 1st opinion?
SFD