St. Robert Bellarmine and the Pope-Heretic Question

[itsjustdave1988]

…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.

SFD

We had a discussion about this some time back, here:

Are Ecclesiastical Disciplines Infallible?

While the disciplinary norms approved for the universal Church may certianly be imprudent, they can never be “harmful” or “dangerous” to the faithful.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I think your’e right.

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 “nt able to err as Pontiff” 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.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

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

SFD,

The excerpt you provided above is for the theological note called “certain,” which differs from the theological note called “theologically certain.” Very confusing for them to use such similar terms, but the notes are actually different. Although the text gives an an “equivalent term,” the definitions of each note is somewhat different.

 

[Arnobius]

What are yours, O arrogant one?

Masters degree in Theology.

Now give yours… or are you seeking to evade the issue when called on it.

Incidentally. Who is the arrogant one? The one who asks for credentials and questions your unsupported opinions? Or the one who calls people “amateur theologians” and insults them?

 

[GerardP]

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.

The Novus Ordo isn’t a lawfully** imposed **discipline.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

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.

Like what? Universal law of the Church?

 

[Arnobius]

The Novus Ordo isn’t a lawfully** imposed **discipline.

Let’s see Pastor Aeternus said the authority of the Pope also extends to discipline and leadership, the Pope promulgated the Ordinary Form… it’s lawfully imposed

 

[cam100]

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.

According to The Church in Council by E. Watkin (1960), the option to omit the Filioque clause was never rescinded. In any event, Pope John Paul II didn’t even need such an option because he was pope. Just as a pope gave permission to the Eastern Catholics to omit it, Pope John Paul II could give himself permission, so to speak, to omit it.

My earlier post was to give an example to illustrate that the Filioque clause is not inherently essential to the creed, and the pope has the authority to determine if it is to be included or not.

 

[AlexV]

The Filioque is NOT optional according to the Missale Romanum, and that’s the end of the story.

 

[Sure]

The Filioque is NOT optional according to the Missale Romanum, and that’s the end of the story.

AlexV,

Is there substantial proof that this happened?

Couldn’t it have just been a mistake?

Just curious…Thanks

 

[Sure]

Let’s see Pastor Aeternus said the authority of the Pope also extends to discipline and leadership, the Pope promulgated the Ordinary Form… it’s lawfully imposed

How does that then affect Arch. Lefevbre’s claim of “grave fear” creating a necessity? How can something which cannot lead to impiety be so destructive as to cause grave fear?

Just curious as to how you see this.

 

[Arnobius]

How does that then affect Arch. Lefevbre’s claim of “grave fear” creating a necessity? How can something which cannot lead to impiety be so destructive as to cause grave fear?

Just curious as to how you see this.

Personally I don’t think the “grave fear” claim has any validity in this case. People can be irrationally fearful about things.

 

[GerardP]

Let’s see Pastor Aeternus said the authority of the Pope also extends to discipline and leadership, the Pope promulgated the Ordinary Form… it’s lawfully imposed

It was promulgated lawfully as an “option” by Paul VI not ever imposed legally. The TLM was always the true Latin Rite of the Church. Paul VI presented it as an “option” and the bishops “imposed” it on the faithful and illegally suppressed the Latin Rite.

 

[Arnobius]

It was promulgated lawfully as an “option” by Paul VI not ever imposed legally. The TLM was always the true Latin Rite of the Church. Paul VI presented it as an “option” and the bishops “imposed” it on the faithful and illegally suppressed the Latin Rite.

If optional but imposed by the bishops, why did the TLM need Papal permission prior to 2007. The TLM not being suppressed and the Ordinary Form being mandated are not mutually exclusive despite what some may claim

 

[AlexV]

Actually, the Missale Romanum of 1970 wasn’t imposed. Legally, it was offered as the “will” of the pontiff that it suppress the earlier Missal, which had ALWAYS meant the older Missal be abrogated. Paul refused to abrogate the older Missal, thus creating a weird and theretofore quite unusual, novel, and indeed utterly unknown situation in the liturgy. Saying one Missal is mandated but the other not abrogated is doublespeak.

 

[Arnobius]

Still waiting on your credentials A-V

 

[itsjustdave1988]

It was promulgated lawfully as an “option” by Paul VI not ever imposed legally.

This thesis is unconvincing, as is pointed out in the following (sedevacantist) article:

Did Paul VI ‘Illegally Promulgate’ the Novus Ordo?
Rev. Anthony Cekada

 

[GerardP]

If optional but imposed by the bishops, why did the TLM need Papal permission prior to 2007. The TLM not being suppressed and the Ordinary Form being mandated are not mutually exclusive despite what some may claim

The TLM didn’t need papal permission. Paul VI lost control of everything and JPII didn’t want to exert papal power except when it came to crushing traditionalists. Why JPII didn’t do what Benedict did on july 7 2007 is the real question. Namely, just tell the truth about the legality of the TLM.

The fact is, the bishops for the most part hated and many still hate the TLM. You can’t change people’s ecclesiology and their beliefs with that Liturgy. You need a liturgy like the “modifications” the Protestants made to the Liturgy in order to effect that. That means bye bye TLM legal or not.

The fact that the Popes let them get away with it and even helped in it is malfeasance in the extreme.

 

[GerardP]

This thesis is unconvincing, as is pointed out in the following (sedevacantist) article:

Did Paul VI ‘Illegally Promulgate’ the Novus Ordo?
Rev. Anthony Cekada

Fr. Cekada is unconvincing because he suffers from the same lunacy that conservatives suffer from regarding papal infallibility. The only difference is Cekada doesn’t delude himself into thinking that the post Vatican II era has been a “Springtime”

 

[AlexV]

Well said, Gerald (about the lunacy of both).

Remember, even Bugnini knew an abrogation decree was desirable/warranted. He requested it and had it refused. So you had the truly bizarre situation of a liturgy being “mandated” while another was “not abrogated”. Why, exactly? Just for the sake of theoretical musing?