St. Robert Bellarmine and the Pope-Heretic Question

[SFD]

mgrfin,

If you would, please respond to Post #221?

SFD

 

[mgrfin]

No you are not. Pax is discussing jurisdiction and you quoted Trent refering to mortal sin. You are fighting a straw man that you created.

I don’t have an adequate reference - a moral theology - handbook to show that the powers of a bishop or priest could be exercised validly without delegation, even if the bishop or priest were in schism or apostacy.

The closest I could come with what I had available is that a priest could operate in mortal sin.

I know what I am doing, VARC. Hopefully, someone out there has a moral theology handbood, and can respond.

I have given the example of the question of Anglican Orders, that they could be valid if there was proper matter and form. Obviously they are illicit. Leo XIII said they were invalid because of improper matter and form. He did not argue they were invalid because they were illicit.

Caritas has been arguing that illiceity begets invalidity in the exercise of Orders. This is not so. A priest is a priest, regardless of whether what he does in the exercise of his function is illicit or not.

peace

 

[VARC]

Please respond to post #221

 

[mgrfin]

Please respond to post #221

There is no reference where this was taken from in CE? Provide reference.

Secondly, what pope has been guilty of serious manifest and notorius heresy???

This is the issue and the question.

Pio Nono?
Pius X?
Pius XI?
Pius XII?
John XXIII?
John Paul II?
Benedict XVI?

Unless you should be the public, manifest, notorius heresy, we are speaking theoretically.

Are we speaking of someone changing the Latin Rite Mass into the vernacular?

I want to see and hear the public, heretical, manifest, notorius statements of these popes.

If we don’t I will argue for the closing of this thread.

Let me hear from you.
peace

 

[VARC]

Here’s 101 heresies of JPII alone.

romancatholicism.org/101-john-paul.htm

 

[mgrfin]

I haven’t been following the thread too closely so mabye I did not understand exactly what ya’ll were talking about. My point was, it looked like mgrfin was saying that an occult heretic does retain jurisdiction, which is exactly contrary to what he said before.

BTW, did you notice the new thread I started which was direct to the Sedevacantists? I’m waiting to see how they will answer the questions posed, which (given their position) they should be able to answer very easily.

You guys are all deceptive. You are all Sedevacantists. That’s what this is about.

Own up to the truth. We won’t cast you in everlasting fire and torment.
peace

 

[mgrfin]

Here’s 101 heresies of JPII alone.

romancatholicism.org/101-john-paul.htm

Just a little more, VARC, and we will ask the Forum Administrator to have you disciplined.

John Paul II was not guilty of any heresies!

Period, end of the story!!

 

[VARC]

Here’s another 101 for BXVI

romancatholicism.org/101-benedict.htm

 

[VARC]

You asked for statements that could be heretical and I provided them. So stop threatening me and just pick it apart if you want.

 

[VARC]

Oh I get it, if statements aren’t provided you’ll shut down the thread. If they are you will get the poster “disciplined”.

 

[mgrfin]

Oh I get it, if statements aren’t provided you’ll shut down the thread. If they are you will get the poster “disciplined”.

I have no authority to shut down the thread. I am not a Forum Administrator.

However, I have rights under Rule 7 of Forum Rules to complain if my Catholic faith is attacked.

peace

 

[SFD]

There is no reference where this was taken from in CE? Provide reference.

Let me hear from you.
peace

mgrfin,

Here’s the link: newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm
CE:

Additional penalties to be decreed by judicial sentences: Apostates and heretics are irregular, that is, debarred from receiving clerical orders or exercising lawfully the duties and rights annexed to them; they are infamous, that is, publicly noted as guilty and dishonoured. This note of infamy clings to the children and grandchildren of unrepented heretics. Heretical clerics and all who receive, defend, or favour them are ipso facto deprived of their benefices, offices, and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church. Baptism received without necessity by an adult at the hands of a declared heretic renders the recipient irregular. Heresy constitutes an impedient impediment to marriage with a Catholic (mixta religio) from which the pope dispenses or gives the bishops power to dispense (see IMPEDIMENTS). Communicatio in sacris, i.e. active participation in non-Catholic religious functions, is on the whole unlawful, but it is not so intrinsically evil that, under given circumstances, it may not be excused. Thus friends and relatives may for good reasons accompany a funeral, be present at a marriage or a baptism, without causing scandal or lending support, to the non-Catholic rites, provided no active part be taken in them: their motive is friendship, or maybe courtesy, but it nowise implies approval of the rites. Non-Catholics are admitted to all Catholic services but not to the sacraments.

SFD

 

[VARC]

I am not attacking your faith. You asked for papl statements that could be considered heresy and when I provided them you started crying foul. Don’t ask for the statements and you won’t get your feelings hurt.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

St. Thomas Aquinas is speaking in the 13th Century. I haver already read the quote you are referring to.

You reject St. Robert Bellarmine “and friends” (other saints), and now St. Thomas because he “is speaking in the 13th century”.

The following is a quote from a 20th century Catholic Encyclopedia which teaches exactly what St. Thomas taught on the subject.
Catholic Encyclopedia:

THE SACRAMENT Of PENANCE: ** "For valid administration, a twofold power is necessary: the power of order and the power of jurisdiction**. The former is conferred by ordination, the latter by ecclesiastical authority (see JURISDICTION). At his ordination a priest receives the power to consecrate the Holy Eucharist, and for valid consecration he needs no jurisdiction. As regards penance, the case is different: “because the nature and character of a judgment requires that sentence be pronounced only on those who are subjects (of the judge) the Church of God has always held, and this Council affirms it to be most true, that the absolution which a priest pronounces upon one over whom he has not either ordinary or delegated jurisdiction, is of no effect” (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, c. 7).

Ordinary jurisdiction is that which one has by reason of his office as involving the care of souls; the pope has it over the whole Church, the bishop within his diocese, the pastor within his parish. Delegated jurisdiction is that which is granted by an ecclesiastical superior to one who does not possess it by virtue of his office. The need of jurisdiction for administering this sacrament is usually expressed by saying that a priest must have “faculties” to hear confession (see FACULTIES). Hence it is that a priest visiting in a diocese other than his own cannot hear confession without special authorization from the bishop. Every priest, however, can absolve anyone who is at the point of death, because under those circumstances the Church gives all priests jurisdiction. newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm

There you have it. The 20th century Catholic Encyclopedia that quotes the council of Trent in teaching exactly what St. Thomas taught. It also teaches exactly what I said about emergency situations: that in such a case the Church supplies jurisdiction.

 

[SFD]

mgrfin,

Here’s another found at the same link:
CE:

The first law of life, be it the life of plant or animal, of man or of a society of men, is self-preservation. Neglect of self-preservation leads to ruin and destruction. But the life of a religious society, the tissue that binds its members into one body and animates them with one soul, is the symbol of faith, the creed or confession adhered to as a condition sine qua non of membership. To undo the creed is to undo the Church. The integrity of the rule of faith is more essential to the cohesion of a religious society than the strict practice of its moral precepts. For faith supplies the means of mending moral delinquencies as one of its ordinary functions, whereas the loss of faith, cutting at the root of spiritual life, is usually fatal to the soul. In fact the long list of heresiarchs contains the name of only one who came to resipiscence: Berengarius. The jealousy with which the Church guards and defends her deposit of faith is therefore identical with the instinctive duty of self-preservation and the desire to live. This instinct is by no means peculiar to the Catholic Church; being natural it is universal. All sects, denominations, confessions, schools of thought, and associations of any kind have a more or less comprehensive set of tenets on the acceptance of which membership depends. In the Catholic Church this natural law has received the sanction of Divine promulgation, as appears from the teaching of Christ and the Apostles quoted above. Freedom of thought extending to the essential beliefs of a Church is in itself a contradiction; for, by accepting membership, the members accept the essential beliefs and renounce their freedom of thought so far as these are concerned.

But what authority is to lay down the law as to what is or is not essential? It is certainly not the authority of individuals. By entering a society, whichever it be, the individual gives up part of his individuality to be merged into the community. And that part is precisely his private judgment on the essentials: if he resumes his liberty he ipso facto separates himself from his church. The decision, therefore, rests with the constitutional authority of the society–in the Church with the hierarchy acting as teacher and guardian of the faith. Nor can it be said that this principle unduly curtails the play of human reason. That it does curtail its play is a fact, but a fact grounded in natural and Divine law, as shown above. That it does not curtail reason unduly is evidenced by this other fact: that the deposit of faith (1) is itself an inexhaustible object of intellectual effort of the noblest kind, lifting human reason above its natural sphere, enlarging and deepening its outlook, soliciting its finest faculties; (2) that, side by side with the deposit, but logically connected with it, there is a multitude of doubtful points of which discussion is free within the wide bounds of charity–“in necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus charitas.” The substitution of private judgment for the teaching magisterium has been the dissolvent of all sects who have adopted it. Only those sects exhibit a certain consistency in which private judgment is a dead letter and the teaching is carried on according to confessions and catechisms by a trained clergy.

SFD

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

mgrfin,

Don’t miss post # 253.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

You guys are all deceptive. You are all Sedevacantists. That’s what this is about.

Own up to the truth. We won’t cast you in everlasting fire and torment.
peace

If you think I am a Sedavacantist you are mistaken.

 

[mgrfin]

mgrfin,

Here’s the link: newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm
SFD

SFD:

The answer is simple: notorious.

Which of the popes in the modern era is guilty of ‘notorious’ heresy?

The whole argument of the sedevacantists falls flat on its face. That is why this whole subject is repugnant.

Good, holy men, servants of the servants of God, being snidely accused of heresy, so they are outside the Church - such statements are the work of the devil.

None of our Holy Fathers were guilty of private heresy, let alone of a notorious act.

Shame on you for bring such a matter, finally, to a head. We now know you for what you are.

peace

 

[SFD]

SFD:

The answer is simple: notorious.

Which of the popes in the modern era is guilty of ‘notorious’ heresy?

The whole argument of the sedevacantists falls flat on its face. That is why this whole subject is repugnant.

Good, holy men, servants of the servants of God, being snidely accused of heresy, so they are outside the Church - such statements are the work of the devil.

None of our Holy Fathers were guilty of private heresy, let alone of a notorious act.

Shame on you for bring such a matter, finally, to a head.

peace

mgrfin,

We were discussing the principles. You were wrong about those principles. Admit it.
CE:

The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.

The principle, which you denied, is that a public heretic is outside the Church.

SFD

 

[VARC]

mgrfin

If sedevacantism is so repugnant to you why don’t you just opt out of the conversation. It is not fair for the other people on this forum if we can’t discuss these issues like adults without you feeling like your faith is being “attacked”. So if these ideas offend you stop reading them. Pax and other catholics would like to discuss these ideas without you having your feelings hurt.