St. Robert Bellarmine and the Pope-Heretic Question

[pnewton]

Dear Newton,

I have never called anyone “stupid” here nor anywhere else. I never called you “stupid” either, and you know that. You did make an observation strikingly similiar to the one that CalmDownWisWins had made. I merely pointed it out.

SFD

No, not you and truthfully I believe I was called ignorant. Not the same thing I know. I can also accept a dash of incorrigibility. :juggle:

 

[SFD]

What is “joke-like” to me is not that the question has come up, but that any answer other than, “A Pope can’t, by definition, commit heresy, any more than the Church, by definition, can commit heresy.”

Well, I agree. A Pope qua Pope.

A person can certainly commit heresy, but the Pope qua Pope is simply prohibited from doing so by the Guarantor of truth.

And that’s why the question of a heretic-pope is important and was considered by the theologians. If a Pope becomes a public heretic as a private person (not in his official capacity as Pope), then he is no longer a Catholic and no longer Pope. Do you see the problem?

Also, a non-Catholic cannot be valid matter for the papacy. His election would be null and void.

So you see now why papal heresy and the fear of the possible election of a heretic was a concern for the theologians?

I’m certainly not capable of teasing out the “legal” reasons why that would be so, but the “legalities” don’t make the fact proper, the fact demands that the legalities conform and confirm them.

It’s a matter of divine law, as Bellarmine clearly states.

If the legalities DON’T do that, then some new “legislation” needs to be written.

Canon 188.4 based on Cum Ex Apostolatus is an example of such law. But you must admit, as you stated earlier, “A person can certainly commit heresy”…and a Pope could do this BEFORE his election (he’s not valid matter and his election is null) or possibly after his election (although this runs counter to the “probable and pious belief” held by St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Universal Church.)

SFD

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Of course, the proximate rule of Faith for a Catholic is the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium. All of the Manualists teach this. Are you suggesting we follow the preaching of the Bishops today? You can’t pick and choose which ones either.

Do you see the problem?

SFD,

Thanks for the reference you provided in a PM. I can always use more source material. I wish I lived next door to the Vehr Theological Library, but if I did, I probably find myself spending all my time there, at the expense of my wife, kids, and job.

You asked:

Are you suggesting we follow the preaching of the Bishops today? You can’t pick and choose which ones either.

Yes. Catholic ecclesiology demands that we obey our prelates and submit to them (cf. Heb 13:17). I’m military, and understand that lawful authority must be obeyed for “unity of command,” “unity of purpose,” “good order and conduct,” are all the “common good” of the community which presses against any anxiety I may have in submission to a superior, even if sometimes to obey is to suffer from the judgment of fools.

My chain of command to which I’m bound to obey in matters religious includes my parish pastor, my diocesan bishop, and Benedict XVI, to include those given lawful authority over me by these three pastors. The only reason, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, to licitly disobey these pastors is if they demand something of me that is outside their lawful scope of authority, or if they demand something of me that is contrary to higher authority.

Thus, if my parish priest demands something contrary to my diocesan bishop, I may licitly disobey. If my bishop demands something contrary to Benedict XVI, I may licitly disobey. If Benedict XVI demands something of me contrary to Divine Revelation, I may licitly disobey. Consequently, it is important to get to know these pastors very well, so that I can come to understand what they demand of me according to their mind and will, whether tacit or expressed.

With regard to Benedict XVI demanding something of me contrary to Divine Revelation, it is my belief (based upon my study of Catholic theology) that he is helped by the Holy Spirit such that he might ONLY do such a thing through “bad example” or personal ignorance, not formally or authoriatively when addressing the universal Church. Consequently, from the traditional Catholic teachings of St. Robert, St. Catherine of Siena, and a whole host of other saints, I disagree that the pope, as Pontiff, can demand something of me contrary to Divine Revelation through doctrine or disciplinary norms promulgated to the universal Church.

Consequently, if Benedict should call me up and demand that I go Koran kissing with him, I may licitly disobey. But if he promulgates canon law, or a liturgical norm, or doctrine to the universal Church as a Act of the Apostolic See, then I am assured that it cannot be contrary to Divine Revelation, not by my subjective analysis of what he promulgated in comparison to the monuments of the past, but due to an a priori belief in traditional Catholic teaching with regard to disciplinary infallibility. What he promulgated may be absolutely foolish, but since it is protected from being “dangerous” or “harmful” to the faith, I am bound to obey (for disciplinary norms) and submit to (for doctrine) even things I might subjectively (and fallibly) consider foolish.

Catholic ecclesiology and epistemology is beautiful. It may take another pope to overturn the foolishness of prior popes, but I have read the last book of the Bible, so I know it is a happy ending.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Dave,
Does this take presidence over the teachings of the popes?

There is only one pope. The teaching of past popes are part of Catholic tradition, they are now among the monuments of the past which were binding then, and may still be binding now insofar as they are congruent with the mind and will of the present Teaching Church. For de fide credenda or de fide tenenda, the living magisterium is responsible for proclaiming them and explaining them in ways modern world might better understand, but they are irrevocable. Other monuments of the past are judged by the living magisterium in the light of tradition and the present thought of the Teaching Church. The present thought of the living magisterium is normative.

For example, if Benedict XVI taught contrary to prior popes, this would no doubt elicit many questions, many “but Holy Father” kinds of fraternal correction would rightly be provided to him by the faithful. If he clarified that he did not intend for it to be a matter “decided” by the Pontiff, or he changed his mind after much consideration (like John XXII) did, then the “question” was an occasion for learning. On the other hand, if he reiterated his teaching (or discipline) in a manner that was formal and authoritative, then we are called to submit to him according to his mind and will. If in the end, he was incorrect, a later pope is sure to correct the foolishness. Until then, we have no pious ground for defiance or dissent.

There seems to be some serious conflict as to the “proper intrepretation” of the Council. What exactly are the majority of theological schools teaching?

We seek to submit to that which is at least “certain” if we are to avoid temerity, or at least “theologically certain” if we are to avoid sin against faith. The proximate norm for interpreting Vatican II is the teaching of the magisterium. Theology schools are still working out the “theological notes” which result from new magisterial texts. This is an ongoing process. It happened with Pius XII as well. The schools had to amend their teaching as Pius XII clarified, through the exercise of his ordinary magisterium, doctrinal matters.

Now, I suspect dogmatic theology is less emphasized today, which is a shame. If you asked a priest what the “theological note” or qualification of a particular teaching was, he’d probably stare blankly back at you. The number of modern theology texts which speak of “theological notes” are … well… nonexistent. Or, at least I haven’t been able to find any. I have to rely upon pre-Vatican II textbooks to even learn about theological qualifications.

My understanding was always that Quanta Cura was an ex cathedra teaching…what are they teaching about it today?

Hmmmmm…can you be more precise? Quanta Cura is a papal document. As you know, ex cathedra papal acts are not the documents themselves, but are limited to that which may be taught in a papal document. As I understand it Quanta Cura is not an ex cathedra definition, but a condemnation of teachings, which means theologians can derive theological certainty that the errors condemned are indeed errors, just as Pius VI’s condemnation (Auctorem Fidei) of Jansenist teachings is not considered a solemn *ex cathedra *definition, but results in theological certainty.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I was referring the Syllabus of Errors condemnation of religious liberty, actually.

With regard to religious liberty, see here:

Vatican II and Religous Liberty: Continuity or Contradiction?
by Fr. Brian Harrison

Pius IX, Vatican II, and Religious Liberty
by Fr. Brian Harrison

Religious Liberty - Rights versus "tolerance"
by Fr. Brian Harrison

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
A person can certainly commit heresy, but the Pope qua Pope is simply prohibited from doing so by the Guarantor of truth.

And that’s why the question of a heretic-pope is important and was considered by the theologians. If a Pope becomes a public heretic as a private person (not in his official capacity as Pope), then he is no longer a Catholic and no longer Pope. Do you see the problem?

I absolutely and totally agree with you.

The solution to the “problem” SEEMS to be SO obvious that it seems to me, a “**highly **skilled observer of the blindingly obvious” )) who apparently does quite a lot of “seeming”, that the “solution” itself is simply a clear restatement of the “problem”, which I would imagine would be what the “legalities” (canon law?) would reflect.

Since I know precisely SQUAT about canon law, or the “fine points” of theology other than the aforesaid “blindingly obvious bits” which my puny mind can try to wrap itself around, I have no idea where to look for “justification” of my observation of my opinion of the “obvious solution” stated above.

Also, a non-Catholic cannot be valid matter for the papacy. His election would be null and void.

Rather reminds me of the “marriage covenant”. If it ever happens “in nullity”, even if that was not known at the time of “commital”, it never actually happened at all, which SEEMS to point to the fact that “being the Pope” is an ongoing “covenant ceremony” (like an everlasting marriage ceremony) where the “matter” of it not “settled” as to it’s “non-nullifying-ness” of the covenant.

No doubt I’m being very clumsy, as I don’t know the appropriate vocabulary, but it seems like the Pope is in a continual “marriage covenant ceremony” during his papacy which could be “nullified” by “bad matter” at any moment!

So you see now why papal heresy and the fear of the possible election of a heretic was a concern for the theologians?

Oh yeah! Not being able to call null the papacy of a person who has evaded their discovery as a heretic by the “not perfect” people whose job it is to choose Popes would be a very bad thing!

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

But you must admit, as you stated earlier, “A person can certainly commit heresy”…and a Pope could do this BEFORE his election (he’s not valid matter and his election is null) or possibly after his election (although this runs counter to the “probable and pious belief” held by St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Universal Church.)

One would think that since any sin is forgiven in the sacrament of reconciliation, that even if a person was a heretic before being elected Pope, that if they were fully reconciled they would be “valid matter” so as to become the Pope.

And, in fact, since it is impossible to know if one WAS a heretic before becoming a Pope, ONLY displayed “heretical behavior” during his papacy would be solid evidence of his being “invalid matter”.

Now, if a person was a known heretic before his possible election to the papacy, I’d have to leave it to the wisdom of the “Pope choosers” to decide if that’s a good idea, which it might be, and legislatively prohibiting “known ex-heretics” from the papacy SEEMS like a bad idea.

( There I go! “SEEMING” again! )

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Of course, “seeming” to be a heretic and pertinacity in clinging to heresy are two differing things.

According to Prümmer, Dominic M., O.P., Manuale Theologiae Moralis. Barcelona: Herder, 1961 (vol. 1, p. 365): *"**in doubt as to whether one is a formal or a material heretic, then he is presumed to be a material heretic. **"

*Also, in trying to assertain whether Cardinal Roncalli was a formal heretic BEFORE his election, one need apply the norms current during the papacy of Pius XII:

For instance,

According to the canonical norms, there’s a certain canonical means to determine pertinacity…

“If a person is suspected of heresy, he is to be warned. If the warning is neglected he is to be debarred from legal acts. If he remain recalcitrant for six months longer, he is to be deemed a heretic and incurs the penalty imposed on heretics” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1918 edition, supplemental volume, containing revisions of the articles in canon law according to the Code).

Those merely suspectus de haeresi, according to the code, retained their membership in the Church, and their office.

Moreoever, Cardinals were afforded special priviledges according to the 1917 CIC. “When not expressly mentioned, cardinals are not subject to penal laws, nor are bishops to suspension or interdict latae sententiae (can. 2227)” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1918 edition, p. 29).

If Cardinal Roncalli was suspected of heresy, by whom? Was he warned? If so by whom? Was he debarred? If so, by whom? Did he remain recalcitrant for six more months then penalized? If so, who penalized him? Under 1917 canon law, he was not “deemed a heretic” unless all of this occurred.

Futhermore, the electoral norms prior to Pius X were abrogated. One instead should consider the electoral norms under Pius XII, as these were normative at the time of Roncalli’s election.

Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis:

“None of the cardinals may in any way, or by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the supreme pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor” Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (December 8, 1945), 34].

Active* in this context means that such a cardinal may vote in the election, while passive means he himself can be elected.

Another factor to consider:

“God may allow that a vacancy of the Apostolic See last for a while. He may also permit that some doubt be risen about the legitimacy of such or such election. However, God will never allow the whole Church to recognize as Pontiff someone who is not really and lawfully. Thus, as long as a pope is accepted by the Church, and united with her like the head is united to the body, one can no longer raise any doubt about a possible defective election… For the universal acceptance of the Church heals in the root any vitiated election." Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi (1927-1929), Vol. I, pp. 612-613].

 

[mgrfin]

I seems SFD agrees with you. Don’t worry. You are in great company, namely me. I, too, have been called stupid by sedevacantists here. For those that know me, it gives me one more thing to point at to show how wrong their opinions can be. Not that I know of any Catholics that give them any serious credence.

Me, and you both. These SV people are rash and rude, and will run you over if you don’t agree with them.

The last SV thread was just closed because of the meanness of the participants, as well as the views persented were attacking the Papacy.

I am sure they will be watching this thread for the same thing.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

Yes, I agree…to the latter statement. St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Universal Church, examined the Pope-Heretic question, theologians of great weight had opinions on it…but it sounds like a “joke” to you. Interesting observation.

SFD

St. Robert Bellarmine would be turning over in his grave if he knew that these separatists and SV people were quoting him as the foundation of their false teaching.

Current Canon Law does not foresee any such thing as St. Robert was discussing. There is no such thing as heresy of a Pope, or invalidation of a Pope’s election, or the vacating of the See on the judgment of a few separatists.

Heresy is a canonical crime, in addition to being a moral fault.
Non-Catholics are not under the jurisdiction of the Code, and cannot be penalized under it. The Magisterium insists that we not accuse non-Catholics of the moral fault of heresy.

For them to continue their argument SV people insist upon using the 1917 Code of Canon Law which has been abrogated.

Since the last SV thread was just closed, expect some of those supporters to be landed here with their foolishness.

peace

 

[itsjustdave1988]

In my discussion with sedevacantists thus far, I haven’t found anything uncharitable or offense in the manner in which they argue their case. In fact, I see them trying to maintain allegiance to traditional Catholic theology, which is pious and admirable. My dispute with them has to do conclusions regarding historical facts, not as much a dispute with regard to Catholic teaching. Sedevacantists seem much more consistent in adhering to Catholic theology than those related to the Lefebvre movement.

I agree with St. Robert Bellarmine, the more I read his works. However, I also agree with that "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. (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Pontifice Romano, bk 4, ch. 6). So, when I approach the question as to who the duly elected Pontiff is, I must approach the question in light of this traditional teaching.

In any case, the Lefebvre movement and sedevacantists have done far less harm to the Catholic religion than modernism or so-called “progressive” movement.

 

[SFD]

itsjustdave:

Hmmmmm…can you be more precise? Quanta Cura is a papal document. As you know, ex cathedra papal acts are not the documents themselves, but are limited to that which may be taught in a papal document. As I understand it Quanta Cura is not an ex cathedra definition, but a condemnation of teachings, which means theologians can derive theological certainty that the errors condemned are indeed errors, just as Pius VI’s condemnation (Auctorem Fidei) of Jansenist teachings is not considered a solemn ex cathedra definition, but results in theological certainty.

Dave,

The Syllabus of Errors falls under the definition of an ex catherda pronouncement. Quanta cura does as well, in the area we are concerned with.
Scheeben:

SECT. 31 — Papal Judgments and their Infallibility.

…From the Infallibility of ex cathedra judgments, the council deduces their Irreformability, and further establishes the latter by excluding the consent of the Church as the necessary condition of it. The approbation of the Church is the consequence not the cause of the Irreformability of ex cathedra judgments. III. Ex cathedra decisions admit of great variety of form. At the same time, in the documents containing such decisions only those passages are infallible which the judge manifestly intended to be so. Recommendations, proofs, and explanations accompanying the decision are not necessarily infallible, except where the explanation is itself the dogmatic interpretation of a text of Scripture, or of a rule of Faith, or in as far as it fixes the meaning and extent of the definition. It is not always easy to draw the line between the definition and the other portions of the document. The ordinary rules for interpreting ecclesiastical documents must be applied. The commonest forms of ex cathedra decisions used at the present time are the following:—

1. The most solemn form is the Dogmatic Constitution, or Bull, in which the decrees are proposed expressly as ecclesiastical laws, and are sanctioned by heavy penalties; e.g. the Constitutions Unigenitus and Auctorem Fidei against the Jansenists, and the Bull Ineffabilis Deus on the Immaculate Conception.
2. Next in solemnity are Encyclical Letters, so far as they are of a dogmatic character. They resemble Constitutions and Bulls, but, as a rule, they impose no penalties. Some of them are couched in strictly juridical terms, such as the Encyclical Quanta cura, while others are more rhetorical in style. In the latter case it is not absolutely certain that the Pope speaks infallibly.…

A Manual Of Catholic Theology, Based On Scheeben’s “Dogmatik” Joseph Wilhelm, D.D., PHD. And Thomas B. Scannell, D.D. With A Preface By Cardinal Manning

SFD

 

[mgrfin]

Cum Ex Apostolatus

is an example of such law. But you must admit, as you stated earlier, “A person can certainly commit heresy”…and a Pope could do this BEFORE his election (he’s not valid matter and his election is null) or possibly after his election (although this runs counter to the “probable and pious belief” held by St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Universal Church.)

SFD

We have a ‘new’ Code. As far as I know, the Law of the Roman Catholic Church does not have requirements for who can be Pope. Nor does it have rules and regulations regarding his election, which are public.

Election to the Papacy is not a Sacrament. There is no ordination, there is no consecration. There is solely a declaration: “Habemus Papam”. There is no ‘matter’ and ‘form’, and there is no ‘consecration’. The Pope can be a layman.

The elected Pope is over the Church, and over the Canon Law of the Church. There are no rules and regulations in the Code he must follow. He can change the law at will.

On the other hand, moral attacks on the Papacy are crimes and subject to censure. Canon 1370 forbids physical attacks on Relgious Figures, including the Holy Father; Canon 1371 involving Doctrinal Violations, including “Disobedience of Legitimate Church Authority”; Canon 1372 “Recourse against the Pope” and Canon 1373 Opposition to Church Authority.

These are canonical crimes: this should take care of all the SV people and the extreme right wing of the Church.

The whole discussion involving St. Robert Bellarmine is irrelevant. Who is the Pope is the one elected by the College of Cardinals. It is up to the College before election to check out the credentials of those being considered: to ask them question on their faith, morals, whatever.

It is certainly not the provence of the laity, including St. Robert Bellarmine nowadays to question the Papacy, the Pope’s orthodoxy, etc. Presumably, that was done before election, by the electors, who are following the rules found in the internal forum for the election of a new pope…

peace

 

[SFD]

With regard to religious liberty, see here:

Vatican II and Religous Liberty: Continuity or Contradiction?
by Fr. Brian Harrison

Dave,

Can you find some other “authority” who defends religious liberty as Fr. Harrison does. I find him totally unconvincing and he makes many incorrect assumptions.

He makes absolutely no distinction between Divine law and Ecclesiastical law.

SFD

 

[SFD]

We have a ‘new’ Code. As far as I know, the Law of the Roman Catholic Church does not have requirements for who can be Pope. Nor does it have rules and regulations regarding his election, which are public.

Election to the Papacy is not a Sacrament. There is no ordination, there is no consecration. There is solely a declaration: “Habemus Papam”. There is no ‘matter’ and ‘form’, and there is no ‘consecration’. The Pope can be a layman.

The elected Pope is over the Church, and over the Canon Law of the Church. There are no rules and regulations in the Code he must follow. He can change the law at will.

On the other hand, moral attacks on the Papacy are crimes and subject to censure. Canon 1370 forbids physical attacks on Relgious Figures, including the Holy Father; Canon 1371 involving Doctrinal Violations, including “Disobedience of Legitimate Church Authority”; Canon 1372 “Recourse against the Pope” and Canon 1373 Opposition to Church Authority.

These are canonical crimes: this should take care of all the SV people and the extreme right wing of the Church.

The whole discussion involving St. Robert Bellarmine is irrelevant. Who is the Pope is the one elected by the College of Cardinals. It is up to the College before election to check out the credentials of those being considered: to ask them question on their faith, morals, whatever.

It is certainly not the provence of the laity, including St. Robert Bellarmine nowadays to question the Papacy, the Pope’s orthodoxy, etc. Presumably, that was done before election, by the electors, who are following the rules found in the internal forum for the election of a new pope…

peace

This is full of errors. I’ll let someone else who takes you seriously deal with it.

SFD

 

[mgrfin]

This is full of errors. I’ll let someone else who takes you seriously deal with it.

SFD

I don’t see you pointing them out. Your cynicism is not the way to respond to posts.

peace

 

[SFD]

I don’t see you pointing them out. Your cynicism is not the way to respond to posts.

peace

That’s because I don’t take you seriously. My time here is actually limited by other more pressing duties.

Maybe we can make a deal. If I would agree to point them out…would you agree to go away?

SFD

 

[mgrfin]

That’s because I don’t take you seriously. My time here is actually limited by other more pressing duties.

Maybe we can make a deal. If I would agree to point them out…would you agree to go away?

SFD

You just don’t like anyone opposing you, or challenging your theses.

I will respond to your errors whenever you make them.

So, I look forward to a charitable response to my post. BTW I am aware of the ‘rubrics’ concerning the election of a Pope. No necessity to point them out to us.

peace

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…Btw, about Gerard Kelly, S.J. ; That name sound familiar…didn’t he write a few books on the liturgy? The Mass of the Future is one of them, I believe.

I goofed. The name is “Gerald Kelly, S.J.”

Fr. Gerald Kelly, S.J. and Fr. John Ford, S.J. authored a two-volume text on Catholic moral theology. They are outstanding.*Contemporary Moral Theology, Vol. 1 - Questions in Fundamental Moral Theology *(1959)
*Contemporary Moral Theology, Vol. 2- Marriage Questions *(1964)
As an example of how even the ordinary teaching of the Roman Pontiff obliges the theological schools to amend their prior position involves the question: “Do individual couples have an affirmative obligation to procreate?”

In their book, Fathers Ford and Kelly state that before Pius XII’s address to midwives (1951):

“as far as the obligation to procreate, the great majority of theologians prior to 1951 did not teach an explicit, affirmative obligation on the individual couple to have children… Father Francis Hurth, S.J, then professor of moral theology at the Jesuit scholasticate at Valkenburg, Holland…expressed the view that…abstinence during fertile times violated no obligation, since neither the married state itself nor the use of marriage imposes on individual couples the duty of preserving the race [F. Hurth, S.J., “De sterilitate physiologica,” Nouvelle revue theologique 58 (1931) 674-89]. This was also the view of Fr. Arthur Versmeersch, S.J., then professor of moral theology at Gregorian University in Rome.” [Ford & Kelly, Contemporary Moral Theology, Vol. 2 (1964), Newman Press, p. 390-391]

In Pius XII’s 1951 address to midwives, however, he affirms that individual couples do have a duty to procreate as an affirmative obligation, contrary to the teaching of the theological schools.

Ford and Kelly explain:

This teaching was the cause of some surprise and has been the source of much theological discussion…the statement was made at the time when the majority of theologians were teaching that individual couples do not have a duty to procreate…the papal teaching on the duty to procreate came as a surprise to many. But surprising or not, and prescinding from the degree of solemnity or authority which attaches to it, it is now the accepted theological position. (ibid., p. 400-402)

 

[SFD]

itsjustdave:

I goofed. The name, it’s “Gerald Kelly, S.J.”

So did I. I was thinking of Gerard Ellard, S.J.

SFD