St. Robert Bellarmine and the Pope-Heretic Question

[Four_Marks]

No, you are posting on three.

Haven’t you advertised for a 'blog-partner"?

No, I’m posting on two! As much as I love the scintillating conversation that you offer, I think I must leave you and let the others post their replies to those who are actually interested in this thread. Btw, I’m extremely interested in this thread.

quote mgrfin: “Haven’t you advertised for a 'blog-partner”?"

Are you making fun of me? Are you being mean to me?

Pax and have a fantastic evening!

 

[SFD]

Where does it say in Canon Law what the requirements are for someone to be elected Pope?

Quoting St. Robert Bellarmine is irrelevant. He lived at a time when we had a different Code.

And you keep referring to the 1917 Code, which has been abrogated.

Let’s get this discussion into the post Vatican II period.

We operate under the 1983 Code. It is available on line at the Vatican site.

peace

It’s not a matter of the Code or ecclesiastical law…it’s a matter of Divine law.

A public heretic is not a member of the Church. He is also ipso facto excommunicated. The first fact is a matter of divine law. The second fact is a matter of ecclesiastical law. St. Pius X (and afterwards Pius XII) altered only the ecclesiastical law. This is very simple and obvious, and it seems to me that the only way one could be confused about it is if one were familiar with only one or two documents, so that the significance of them was not fully grasped, or if one were incapable of distinguishing between divine and ecclesiastical law.

St. Robert Bellarmine has already answered this objection, as follows:

“There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.”

The above comments are sufficient proof of our position. However, as an additional proof, one could try and find a manualist or canonist who teaches that it is not divine law that only a Catholic is valid matter for the papacy. It would be particularly interesting to find one who wrote after St. Pius X issued his legislation, with a view to noting any citation of that legislation. It appears that no canonist or theologian thought that St. Pius X (or Pius XII) had made it possible for a public heretic or any other non-Catholic to be validly elected pope. Indeed, all of the ones I have seen state the exact opposite - viz., that it is a matter of divine law that only a Catholic is valid matter for the papacy.

SFD

 

[pnewton]

No. I don’t believe that I did ever call him stupid. Could you please cite the thread and post # where I (purportedly) did this?

You did not. I am so sorry for the mistake, but in my defense, I did clarify my post immediately afterward. What I was actually called was “ignorant”. I stated that I knew these were vastly different. And yes, those that do know me would find such statements very humorous indeed, as well as highly inaccurate. Of course, I will concede to the ignorance on many things, as long as the specific thing that I am ignorant on were true. As far as general ignorance or stupidity, that’s rich.

 

[mgrfin]

You did not. I am so sorry for the mistake, but in my defense, I did clarify my post immediately afterward. What I was actually called was “ignorant”. I stated that I knew these were vastly different. And yes, those that do know me would find such statements very humorous indeed, as well as highly inaccurate. Of course, I will concede to the ignorance on many things, as long as the specific thing that I am ignorant on were true. As far as general ignorance or stupidity, that’s rich.

You are very kind.

Whether he called you stupid or ignorant, I think it is pretty much the same thing: an uncharitable rant against a fellow poster.

That thread was closed, and his rant might have had a lot to do with it.

He said he was sorry, and that it won’t happen again.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

It’s not a matter of the Code or ecclesiastical law…it’s a matter of Divine law.

A public heretic is not a member of the Church. He is also ipso facto excommunicated. The first fact is a matter of divine law. The second fact is a matter of ecclesiastical law. St. Pius X (and afterwards Pius XII) altered only the ecclesiastical law. This is very simple and obvious, and it seems to me that the only way one could be confused about it is if one were familiar with only one or two documents, so that the significance of them was not fully grasped, or if one were incapable of distinguishing between divine and ecclesiastical law.

St. Robert Bellarmine has already answered this objection, as follows:

The above comments are sufficient proof of our position. However, as an additional proof, one could try and find a manualist or canonist who teaches that it is not divine law that only a Catholic is valid matter for the papacy. It would be particularly interesting to find one who wrote after St. Pius X issued his legislation, with a view to noting any citation of that legislation. It appears that no canonist or theologian thought that St. Pius X (or Pius XII) had made it possible for a public heretic or any other non-Catholic to be validly elected pope. Indeed, all of the ones I have seen state the exact opposite - viz., that it is a matter of divine law that only a Catholic is valid matter for the papacy.

SFD

Divine Law?: It is in the Decalogue?; or, it is in the Pentateuch?

The election of a pope is prescribed in the New Testament by Jesus Christ? or it is in the Pauline Epistles? maybe the Petrine Epistles?

Where is this matter a matter of Divine Law?

peace

 

[Ron_Conte]

It is true that heresy is an offense against Divine Law, so its most fundamental penalty must also be from Divine Law, even if there exist penalties in Canon Law.

If the Pope could become a heretic, or if a heretic could be elected Pope (but invalidy), then the guidance of the Church by its Head would be continually uncertain. For each member would have to judge whether or not each Pope was a heretic, before or after his election. God is not so foolish as to establish His Church on such sand.

Instead, the truth is this: if a heretic is validly chosen as Pope, and he is validly ordained as a Bishop (at whatever point in time), as soon as he willingly accepts the office (which is the third requirement for validity), he loses his heresy. Neither can any valid Pope fall into heresy, not even privately and personally, because he is the seat of the infallible teaching authority of the Church. Though he can sin privately and personally, he cannot commit the sin of heresy; God prevents this sin in the Pope in order to make certain that the keys to the kingdom of Heaven open and close as they should, and that the gates of Hell do not prevail against the teaching of the Church.

A heretic who is validly elected as Pope is like a man who has committed many serious sins in his life, from which he has not repented, but then he has an opportunity to do an act which is so selfless and good that the act itself contains the implicit repentance of all the evil acts he has ever done. He freely chooses to do the good act in full cooperation with grace, and he is no longer under the guilt of those sins.

As for temporal decisions stating that a heretic must not be chosen as Pope, this is a prudent rule. But if it is violated, it is God who sets things right by converting the heretic as soon as he accepts his election (or sooner).

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

…

A heretic who is validly elected as Pope is like a man who has committed many serious sins in his life, from which he has not repented, but then he has an opportunity to do an act which is so selfless and good that the act itself contains the implicit repentance of all the evil acts he has ever done. He freely chooses to do the good act in full cooperation with grace, and he is no longer under the guilt of those sins.

As for temporal decisions stating that a heretic must not be chosen as Pope, this is a prudent rule. But if it is violated, it is God who sets things right by converting the heretic as soon as he accepts his election (or sooner).

The obvious problem with this scenario is that it invalidates, negates, a person’s free will, which God will not do.

The person who is elected a Pope is still a person, and as such has free will. To take away a person’s free will is to take away his personhood. The Pope is not a “non-person” who has been “subsumed” by his office, but a person IN an office.

The reminds me very much of the “Jesus was all God and not man” heresy, and may well be invalid as a proposition for the same reasons.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Divine Law?: It is in the Decalogue?; or, it is in the Pentateuch?

The election of a pope is prescribed in the New Testament by Jesus Christ? or it is in the Pauline Epistles? maybe the Petrine Epistles?

Where is this matter a matter of Divine Law?

peace

Since Peter was given the keys, which means given the “deciders office” in matters of faith and morals, and since the office can not be overcome even “by the powers of hell”, it is “divine law” that the papacy be forever inviolate in terms of promulgating heresy.

But, since you don’t agree with any of the premises of that proposition, and we really don’t care about the opinions, during this discussion, of anyone who doesn’t agree with those premises, your “objections” have been answered (unsatisfactorily in your opinion no doubt) to our satisfaction, which in this case is the only satisfaction necessary.

The “whys” about the papacy are another discussion entirely, and you should go there to dispute it. Thanks.

 

[mgrfin]

CalmDownWisWins;QUOTE:

I wish to quote from St. Robert Bellarmine who gets quoted often:
quote
Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are ipso facto deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: “We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right”; and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that the heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same.
quote.

Despite all the heavy weights in the above paragraph, St. Robert is wrong in this statement; so are his cohorts. SThe power of Order is not in anyway constrained by the personal sin of the ordained. Maybe Robert and the others are redeemed elsewhere in the statement, but not in the piece I have cited.

Bishops who have been excommunicated formally by the Church have gone out and ordained priests and bishops. Such ordinations are valid, but illicit.

This is why the whole matter is pure nonesense. A laicized priest (someone who has been returned to the lay state) can say mass, and absolve from sin, and anoint in cases of emergencies. It is in canon law.

The Holy Father is head of the Church. He is not controlled by any code in the Code of Canon Law. He can change the law at will.

We have not had a pope of those we are considering, from Pio Nono, thru Benedict XVI who has committed formal heresy, and even if he did, it would not matter. As a bishop, he could consecrate other bishops; as a bishop he could ordain other priests. He does not lose the power of the sacrament of Orders.

Likewise a fallen away priest, who has been excommunicated, can in an emergency absolve from sin, and anoint the sick (moribundi); he also retains he power to ‘say Mass’, hear confession and absolve from sin; and baptise (although anyone can in the case of emergency.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

CalmDownWisWins;QUOTE:

Are you a sedevacantist?

 

[pnewton]

The obvious problem with this scenario is that it invalidates, negates, a person’s free will, which God will not do.

I do not see where free will must be denied, no more than the dogma of papal infallibility violates free will. God still has tools to prevent heresy from being promulgated without violationg free will. For one, He could not let the Holy Spiriit guide the Church to a Pope that will choose heresy. Seing how many priests and bishops there are and how few heretics, this would not be dificult to see happening. Second, He could always take such a one.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

CalmDownWisWins:

Are you a sedevacantist?

Uh, no? But let me look up that word here for a second…

…ah, no, definately not.

Why? Have I said something that would put me in that camp?

 

[mgrfin]

Since Peter was given the keys, which means given the “deciders office” in matters of faith and morals, and since the office can not be overcome even “by the powers of hell”, .

But, since you don’t agree with any of the premises of that proposition, and we really don’t care about the opinions, during this discussion, of anyone who doesn’t agree with those premises, your “objections” have been answered (unsatisfactorily in your opinion no doubt) to our satisfaction, which in this case is the only satisfaction necessary.

The “whys” about the papacy are another discussion entirely, and you should go there to dispute it. Thanks.

What spurious argumentation!. Some one is not convinced of your answer, you say, ‘tough luck’, we have answered.

You have to do better than that since you want us to accept that the Pope can lose all of this power by virtue of an heretical act, and yet you say he is protected by Divine law in matter of faith and morals.

Your own arguments contradict each other.

The power of order is not destroyed by sin - which you have not addressed. The power of the papacy is not destroyed by sin either. The papacy is not vacated by any fault of the incumbent.
The Pope is chosen by the electors, and once he has that office he cannot be removed, and his acts in that office remain in effect. He is not responsible to Canon Law, and answers to noone - he is the Pope.

And you have not answered the question whether you are a sedevacantist?

Peace

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

I do not see where free will must be denied, no more than the dogma of papal infallibility violates free will. …

Yeah, you’re right there!

OK. I relent. I was conjecturing on the consequences of an assumption of an impossibility being possible, which rather makes for a moot case right from the proverbial get-go!

 

[mgrfin]

Yeah, you’re right there!

OK. I relent. I was conjecturing on the consequences of an assumption of an impossibility being possible, which rather makes for a moot case right from the proverbial get-go!

Apparently you enjoy speaking nonsense. An impossiblity cannot have consequences.

I think you are looking to have this thread closed as you spout this stuff to try to detract us from arriving at any truth in premises which the originator was trying to posit.

If you think this thread is nonsense, then let’s go to the Forum Administrator and ask him to close it.

Are you a sedevacantist?

peace

 

[mgrfin]

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

If you do not have any proof that a true Pope could fall into heresy, what are we talking about. It is not a certainty. Therefore the Pope still holds his office

What is the justification of disparaging a pope by ‘reducing him’ to a non-papal status. This is an impossibility. As a matter of fact, an heretic bishop does not lose the power of his office, as St. Robert says. He can still consecrate other bishops, ordain priests validly. So can fallen priests, either in personal serious sin, or even heresy, he can validly say the Mass, etc. St. Robert said ‘no’, but he was wrong.

And, what makes Robert Bellarmine an expert on this matter. He is just one voice, and his voice and opinion are not infallible.

Sanctity never guarantees infallibility.

And in the practical cases we are dealing with, who in the ‘church’ is judging this man. Has a council been held, a synod, a consistory to adjudicate the matter?

If the Pope were accused of Heresy, he is entitled by the power of his Office to be judged by a General Council, not by a bunch of sedevacantists, and low level theologians to decide on such an important matter.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

Well, I agree. A Pope qua Pope.

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.

That is a conclusion, and you have no proofs of this.

Why would sin authomatically reduce this man from his Papal office, just as a sin of apostacy not reduce a bishop to the lay state.

You keep quoting St. Robert Bellarmine, and he does not issue a conclusion, except “I don’t know”. Therfdore the issue remains moot.

For the public sin of heresy, a trial would be necessary before they ‘burned him at the stake’ if that is the analogy.

No pope has commited public heresy, and therefore the question is moot.

If a pope has, where is the reaction to it in the official church, where is his trial, where is the General Council, the Synod, the Consistory to judge him. A public ‘delict’ requires this.

A bishop who commits public heresy is not reduced to the lay state - he is excommunicated. He can demand a trial before being reduced to the lay state. And even in the lay state, he could still validly ordain, and say mass, and absolve sin. “Tu es sacerdos in aeterum”.

Individuals, including bishops and popes have rights. Any one, including sedevacantists, can’t go around making wild accusations.

peace

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

What is the justification of disparaging a pope by ‘reducing him’ to a non-papal status. This is an impossibility. As a matter of fact, an heretic bishop does not lose the power of his office, as St. Robert says.

mgrfin,

Did I misunderstand you there? Are you now affirming what you argued with me about for dozens of posts? That an occult heretic does not lose jurisdiction?

If that is what you are now saying, did you ever explain when and why you completely reversed your position?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

mgrfin:

I wish to quote from St. Robert Bellarmine who gets quoted often:
quote:

Robert Bellarmine: “Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are ipso facto deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: “We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right”; and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that the heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same”.

Despite all the heavy weights in the above paragraph, St. Robert is wrong in this statement; so are his cohorts. The power of Order is not in anyway constrained by the personal sin of the ordained.

St. Robert is not implying that his personal sin is what would hinder the sacrament. He is saying that the person would lack the ecclesial jurisdiction to do such things, which would indeed effect the validity of at least some of the sacraments (unless there was an emergency situation).

What he said it true: manifest heretics do not possess ecclesial jurisdiction, since they are separated from the Church; and ecclesial jurisdiction is necessary for them to administer the sacraments legally, and sometimes validly.

 

[SFD]

mgrfin,

Did I misunderstand you there? Are you now affirming what you argued with me about for dozens of posts? That an occult heretic does not lose jurisdiction?

If that is what you are now saying, did you ever explain when and why you completely reversed your position?

Pax et Caritas,

The heretic Bishop in question here; he is not occult. If he was occult, NOBODY would know it.

You are using the term “occult heretic” erroneuosly.

SFD