St. Robert Bellarmine and the Pope-Heretic Question

[SFD]

ENOUGH, sheesh.

The WHOLE issue here is that what the Church teaches is that disciplines lawfully imposed by the Church cannot lead you to impiety.

That is QUITE different than saying that they’re “infallible”.

AlexV,

It is imprecise to call disciplines lawfully imposed “infallible”. That’s why Van Noort, and all the other manualists for that matter, describe the two-fold nature of a disciplinary decree…one aspect is infallible and the other is not.
VanNoort Christ’s Church:

The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church’s rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment:

1. “This law squares with the Church’s doctrine of faith and morals”; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. (15) This amounts to a doctrinal decree.
2. “This law, considering all the circumstances, is most opportune.” This is a decree of practical judgment.

Although it would he rash to cast aspersions on the timeliness of a law, especially at the very moment when the Church imposes or expressly reaffirms it, still the Church does not claim to he infallible in issuing a decree of practical judgment. For the Church’s rulers were never promised the highest degree of prudence for the conduct of affairs. But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above — and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.

The Church’s infallibility in disciplinary matters, when understood in this way, harmonizes beautifully with the mutability of even universal laws. For a law, even though it be thoroughly consonant with revealed truth, can, given a change in circumstances, become less timely or even useless, so that prudence may dictate its abrogation or modification.

SFD

 

[Arnobius]

Excuse me, “Arnobius”. If you knew the history of the liturgy, you’d know that the COMPLETE MISSAL was promulgated in 1970, but the ORDO MISSAE in 1969 and the Eucharistic Prayers in 1968, all in Latin typical editions.

Suggestion, AlexV. Try phrasing your posts accurately then. You said the Ordo Missae was published in 1968:

Originally Posted by AlexV
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.

So, while I know the history of the liturgy, you seem not to know the history of your own postings in this thread

 

[Arnobius]

I love how infallibility has now been stretched to cover “theologically certain” OPINIONS.

I love your limited grasp of the term, Saying one does not teach heresy in the private opinions of the pope is not advocating the infallibility of all statements, as one can err and not be heretical.

Those who have nothing to say hide it by speaking loudly…

 

[Sure]

So, does that mean the new Mass cannot lead to impiety?

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexV
…

The WHOLE issue here is that what the Church teaches is that disciplines lawfully imposed by the Church cannot lead you to impiety.

…

So, does that mean the new Mass cannot lead to impiety?

That would be correct. The “New Mass” cannot lead to impiety. The will of the impious leads to impiety.

 

[SFD]

AlexV:

I love how infallibility has now been stretched to cover “theologically certain” OPINIONS.

I love your limited grasp of the term, Saying one does not teach heresy in the private opinions of the pope is not advocating the infallibility of all statements, as one can err and not be heretical.

Those who have nothing to say hide it by speaking loudly…

Arnobius,

What AlexV does not realise is that Pope Pius IX teaches us in Tuas Libenter that we must give our assent to those doctrines classified as “theologically certain”. The theological “note” of “theologically certain” doctrine demands an ASSENT OF CERTITUDE

Theological Note: Certain.
Equivalent term: Common; theologically certain.
Explanation: A truth unanimously held by all schools of
theologians which is derived from revealed
truth, but by more than one step of reasoning.
Example: The true and strict causality of the sacraments.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Temerarious.
Effects of denial: Usually, mortal sin of temerity.

The above is a 1951 classification that was used the the Roman Congregations (ie. The Holy Office).

AlexV has no idea what he is talking about.

SFD

 

[AlexV]

Yeah, I don’t throw around words like “mortally sinful” and “infallible” as loosely as you amateur theologians do.

As for you, Arnobius, I made a typo with 1968 vs. 1969 which is utterly irrelevant to my post about the Arian heresy. You had no idea when the Missal was published vs. the Ordo and vs. the Preces Eucharistiae, and I did, so I suggest you refrain from nitpicking over that which you were clueless about to begin with.

 

[SFD]

Yeah, I don’t throw around words like “mortally sinful” and “infallible” as loosely as you amateur theologians do.

AlexV,

Oh, they’re not my words…they belong to Father Sixtus Cartechini S.J. and were used by the Holy Office.

On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them by Father Sixtus Cartechini S.J. (Rome, 1951), a work which was drafted for use by auditors of the Roman Congregations.

Do you think Cartechini was an “amateur theologian”?

Here’s another Theological Note from Cartechini:

Theological note: Dogma.
Equivalent terms: Dogma of faith; de fide, de fide Catholica;
de fide divina et Catholica.
Explanation: A truth proposed by the Church as revealed by
God.
Examples: The Immaculate Conception; all the contents
of the Athanasian Creed.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Heresy
Effects of denial: Mortal sin committed directly against the virtue of faith, and, if the heresy is outwardly professed, excommunication is automatically incurred and membership of the Church forfeited.
Remarks: A dogma can be proposed either by a solemn
definition of pope or council, or by the Ordinary Magisterium, as in the case of the Athanasian Creed, to which the church has manifested her solemn commitment by its longstanding
liturgical and practical use and commendation.

Do you disagree with this one too AlexV?

SFD

 

[Arnobius]

Yeah, I don’t throw around words like “mortally sinful” and “infallible” as loosely as you amateur theologians do.

As for you, Arnobius, I made a typo with 1968 vs. 1969 which is utterly irrelevant to my post about the Arian heresy. You had no idea when the Missal was published vs. the Ordo and vs. the Preces Eucharistiae, and I did, so I suggest you refrain from nitpicking over that which you were clueless about to begin with.

Actually, reread my post. I did get the dates right (1969-1970).

As for the “amateur theologian” crack, put up or shut up. What are your credentials?

 

[AlexV]

What are yours, O arrogant one?

 

[AlexV]

SFD, I have no problems with that box you posted. I have problems with Dave’s stretching of infalliblity to cover a zillion things the doctrine simply doesn’t cover.

I might note the box you posted addresses EXACTLY what I posted some time ago about the problem of John Paul omitting the Filioque from a Roman Rite Mass.

 

[pnewton]

As for the “amateur theologian” crack, put up or shut up. What are your credentials?

and yet earlier,

Those who have nothing to say hide it by speaking loudly…

Pot, meet kettle.

The point is that no one here has any credentials or authority to make such crazy conclusions that run counter to the rest of credentialed Catholic theologians and ecclesial authorities, as if they were a Doctor of the Church, or a lone saint standing against a new heresy. Alex made it clear he did not claim any such credentials.

 

[cam100]

I might note the box you posted addresses EXACTLY what I posted some time ago about the problem of John Paul omitting the Filioque from a Roman Rite Mass.

Is the post to which you are referring? I posted a response to this (re-posted at the bottom) but didn’t see anyone comment on it.

I will say this, though.

The whole list of usual John Paul II attacks…the Koran kissing, Assisi, the sign of the tilac, the bare-breasted lectors…all of which I deplore thoroughly and intensely…do not bother me as much as one thing he did more than once.

He would sometimes omit the word “Filioque” from the Nicene Creed at a Roman Rite Mass.

Huh? Come again? Is that word in brackets and marked optional in the Missale Romanum HE promulgated in 2002?

No, of course not. It’s required.

Oh…wait…he’s the Pope…he can do that, right?

Well, no. He can’t. He is a custodian of what he inherited.

And for those who want to twist into pretzels to justify everything a pope did, let’s return to my other example.

John Paul omitted the word “Filioque” more than once from a Roman Rite liturgy.

Justified? Never.

Actually, the “Filioque” wasn’t added to the Creed in the Mass until 1014.

The Council of Lyons, in an attempt to appeal to the Greek Orthodox and encourage their return, allowed them to omit this phrase from the Creed, although they were supposed to accept the doctrine nonetheless.

This demonstrates that this phase is not required in the Creed, and Pope John Paul II was not the first to omit it for ecumenical reasons.

 

[Sure]

Just a thought…

Since we all agree that the new Mass cannot lead to any impiety, Lefebvre’s whole “grave fear” necessity seems to collapse. How can something which can cause no impiety at the same time cause “grave fear”?

 

[GerardP]

Just a thought…

Since we all agree that the new Mass cannot lead to any impiety, Lefebvre’s whole “grave fear” necessity seems to collapse. How can something which can cause no impiety at the same time cause “grave fear”?

We don’t all agree on that. The lack of incentives to piety when compared to the TLM constitutes a “letting of the defenses down” and diminishes piety.

One can go from the Novus Ordo to the TLM and see more incentives to piety but one can’t go the other way unless they adopt a new faith.

LeFebvre was correct about the Novus Ordo as was Michael Davies and a whole host of others.

 

[Sure]

We don’t all agree on that. The lack of incentives to piety when compared to the TLM constitutes a “letting of the defenses down” and diminishes piety.

One can go from the Novus Ordo to the TLM and see more incentives to piety but one can’t go the other way unless they adopt a new faith.

LeFebvre was correct about the Novus Ordo as was Michael Davies and a whole host of others.

Your dislike of the ordinary form aside, AlexV and you seemed to agree that lawfully “imposed discipline cannot lead to impiety”. Since the mass is lawfully imposed discipline, it therefore cannot lead to impiety.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Dave,

No, I think that is incorrect.

I think your’e right.

You can’t possibly be claiming that Bellarmine was calling “probable and can be piously believed” that the Supreme Pontiff cannot err as Pontiff? This is what is CERTAIN.

I think Bellermine intended to provide proofs for the entire proposition, including the part regarding the pontiff as a particular person. However, I agree that the portion regarding the pope is what he likely considered “certain,” and the other portion he probably didn’t hold to be as certain, but most probable.

BTW, I asked the Vehr Theological Library in Denver if they could send me Bk 4, ch 6. from Bellermine’s De Romano Pontifice. I’ll let you know when it arrives.

 

[AlexV]

So “just” because the Filioque was added “too late” means it’s optional for “ecumenical reasons”?

Huh? Is this what the sensus fidei has been reduced to?

We can omit things even when the Missal gives NO SUCH OPTION just because they may have been made universal “only” in 1014?

Nonsense. John Paul was wrong to omit a word from the Creed multiple times at a Roman Rite Mass.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

We don’t all agree on that. The lack of incentives to piety when compared to the TLM constitutes a “letting of the defenses down” and diminishes piety.

One can go from the Novus Ordo to the TLM and see more incentives to piety but one can’t go the other way unless they adopt a new faith.

LeFebvre was correct about the Novus Ordo as was Michael Davies and a whole host of others.

Your judgement, which is personal and not Magisterial, as to the relative “lack of **incentives **to piety” of one form to the other is not the issue.

The issue is whether the Novus Ordo actually leads to impiety, which it does not objectively do, AND IF one **IS **“lead to impiety” by OBSESSING on the selfish desire of a “lost treasure”, which is putting one’s “earthly desires” above a truth from the Magisterium, then it comes not from “the Novus Ordo” but from the person who OVER-VALUES the TLM!

That the effect of the Novus Ordo was “impiety of those whose job it is to promulgate piety” tells us only of a weakness of those who profess to “be more authoritative than the Magisterium” who find it more “useful” to spread impiety than give up their personal desires.

Satan absolutely LOVES it that the spread of impiety is powered by “counterfeit piety”.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

So “just” because the Filioque was added “too late” means it’s optional for “ecumenical reasons”?

Huh? Is this what the sensus fidei has been reduced to?

We can omit things even when the Missal gives NO SUCH OPTION just because they may have been made universal “only” in 1014?

Nonsense. John Paul was wrong to omit a word from the Creed multiple times at a Roman Rite Mass.

Would it be acceptable to “say silently” the phrase “the Father Almighty”?

I’m sure John Paul the Great didn’t “omit” the Filioque. He merely made it quiet as a way to highlight both it’s value and the Church’s charity and humility toward the goal of “letting our eastern brothers know they are loved and wanted”.

You are free to interpret his actions as “cowtowing”, but since without our ability to accept the Magisterium as the Magisterium, and not as the “Suggestarium”, we are called protestants.