St. Robert Bellarmine and the Pope-Heretic Question

[Four_Marks]

I just assumed he was writing 1 paragraph with double spacing between lines . Hey mgrfin what’s up with that anyway?

Dear VARC,

I’ve been away for the day. I see that the “troll in residence” has been annoying you somewhat. His staggering erudition is enhanced, no doubt, by the beaming countenance of John XXIII bearing down upon him in his study where he has no books of substance to back him up.

I really wish he’d answer:

"Quote:
Originally Posted by SFD
mgrfin,

So heresy is a sin and a crime. What were heretics guilty of before there was any Code of Canon Law?

SFD

mgrfin, has the cat got you’re tongue?

SFD"

I maintain that he is useful because Pax & SFD and others are educating Catholics and at the same time exposing the posters here that one must, necessarily, take with “a grain of salt”.

Regards,
Four_Marks

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…A public heretic is not a member of the Church. He is also ipso facto excommunicated.

If by public heretic, you mean public formal heresy, which necessarily includes manifest pertinacity, I agree that by Divine Law and ecclesiastical he cannot be a member of the Church, “in actu.”

However, a “suspicion of heresy” does not constitute proof of manifest formal heresy. "**I***n doubt as to whether one is a formal or a material heretic, then he is presumed to be a material heretic. **" *[Prümmer, Dominic M., O.P., *Manuale Theologiae Moralis. Barcelona: Herder, 1961 (vol. 1, p. 365)]

“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).

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.

As a matter of history, it is not convincing that Cardinal Roncalli was a manifest heretic before the election. One must look at the historic facts surrounding his election using principles common to the study of history.

Take the neo-Jansenist (Feeneyist) claims against Pius IX, for example. They could set up a plausible argument that Pius IX was a “manifest heretic” using *the same *methodology, as other sedevacantists who disagree with this Feeneyist interpretation of Tradition.

Observe the following hypothetical claim, based upon the real claims of neo-Jansenists, which I find as unconvincing as other sedevacantist arguments…Pius IX contradicted the dogma that “no one at all” is saved outside of the Catholic Church. Pope Innocent III dogmatically defined it at the IV Lateran Council, which was an ecumenical council held in 1215.

Yet, acting as a “private person,” and only “appearing” to be pope, Pius IX taught the contrary in Singulari Quidem.

Clearly, prior to his election he must have been a manifest heretic, because he could not have been the “duly elected” pope then taught what he so clearly taught, contrary to dogma.

Another possibility (contrary to Bellermine’s conclusion), is that Pius IX became a “manifest heretic” as a “private person” after the election.

So, it must be that Pius IX was either not “duly elected” or after his election Pius IX must have been a manifest heretic as a private person which ipso facto made him no longer “valid matter” for the papacy, and immediately the Chair of Peter became vacant. This is evidenced by the “fact” that he taught contrary to dogma in *Singulari Quidem, *which “only appeared to be” an act of the apostolic see.
See how the disputed claim that Pius IX taught heresy presented as the accepted premise, and the remaining argument is build upon it? The conclusion of the vacant papacy, therefore, can only be as assured as the first premise (which is dubious).

Thus, using the argument above, one could fabricate an excuse to reject Pius IX as “valid pope” solely based upon an erroneous and subjective opinion that Pius IX contradicted the “real” Catholic tadition as “properly” interpreted by the neo-Jansenists. Whether they cite “manualists” or “do their own theology” doesn’t really matter. Becuase the argument, in the final analysis, is based upon one’s subjective fallible interpretation of Singulari Quidem as compared to their subjective fallible interpretation of the what Lateran IV really meant.

continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

So, all the quotes from manualists and Bellarmine appear to be nothing more than a convenient method to do exactly what the Feeneyist neo-Jansenists do–dissent from such popes as Pius V, Pius IX, Pius X, etc. The same clever argument is reduced to one thing: the primacy of the subjective conscience with regard to whether a pope did or did not contradict dogma. It is “solo traditio” plain and simple, creating a counter-magisterium of “conscience” or “theologians” contrary to the authentic magisterium.

So what sin do the Feeneyist neo-Jansenists commit? They have done nothing that other sedevancantists have not also done. They too claim a really loooooooong interregnum period, awaiting to be vindicated by the next elected pope (or the next, or the next after that, or…). They too claim to be the “real” remnant, small in numbers yet the only ones faithful to “real” Catholic tradition.

But how many historically elected popes does it take before one concedes it is “temerious” to cling to one’s subjective suspicion of “heresy” of all these past popes?

Bellarmine concluded in De Pontifice Romano, bk 4. ch. 6, "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." Whether you believe this is “certain” or whether you believe it merely “probable and pious,” is not as important as the logical consequence of rejected this teaching. The above hypothetical argument shows that once you reject this teaching of Bellarmine, the entire ecclesiology of the Catholic Church reduces to only one thing: obedience to the pope is only until you think he teaches something that contradicts dogma.

Once one accepts Bellarmines traditional Catholic teaching 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." (De Pontifice Romano, Bk 4, ch. 6), the sedevacantist claims become absurd unless they have further evidence from history that person the entire world believes occupies the office of Roman Pontiff was not really “duly elected.”

 

[mgrfin]

Most of what these guys profess as ultra Traditional Catholics, SSPX, FSSP, Conclavists, Palmarians, Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, CMRI, followers of Pope Michael I, should all be condemned as heretics.

Instead, by hint and innuendo, they accuse the Holy Father (several of them) of crimes of which they are not guilty…

These individuals should be pinned with a canonical crime for attacking the Vicar of Christ on earth. It is they who are outside the Church, and their eternal salvation is in jeopardy.

As St. says, “Be awake and vigiliant, for your adversary, the devil goes about seeking whome he may devour”.

peace

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Most of what these guys profess as ultra Traditional Catholics, SSPX, FSSP, Conclavists, Palmarians, Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, CMRI, followers of Pope Michael I, should all be condemned as heretics.

What has the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter done? They are almost certainly the most orthodox group within “normal union” with Rome today.

 

[mgrfin]

What has the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter done? They are almost certainly the most orthodox group within “normal union” with Rome today.

When I knew them they were connected with Lefebrevrfe’s group.
Maybe they have reformed themselves since them

peace

 

[SFD]

continued…

So, all the quotes from manualists and Bellarmine appear to be nothing more than a convenient method to do exactly what the Feeneyist neo-Jansenists do–dissent from such popes as Pius V, Pius IX, Pius X, etc. The same clever argument is reduced to one thing: the primacy of the subjective conscience with regard to whether a pope did or did not contradict dogma. It is “solo traditio” plain and simple, creating a counter-magisterium of “conscience” or “theologians” contrary to the authentic magisterium.

Clever yourself Dave, to attempt to paint me Jansenist.
itsjustdave:

So what sin do the Feeneyist neo-Jansenists commit? They have done nothing that other sedevancantists have not also done. They too claim a really loooooooong interregnum period, awaiting to be vindicated by the next elected pope (or the next, or the next after that, or…). They too claim to be the “real” remnant, small in numbers yet the only ones faithful to “real” Catholic tradition.

I never claimed that I was a member of “the real remnant”.
itsjust dave:

But how many historically elected popes does it take before one concedes it is “temerious” to cling to one’s subjective suspicion of “heresy” of all these past popes?

All you have is this “dogmatic fact” argument. It’s your fact Dave…but it’s not factual.
itsjustdave:

Bellarmine concluded in De Pontifice Romano, bk 4. ch. 6, "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." Whether you believe this is “certain” or whether you believe it merely “probable and pious,” is not as important as the logical consequence of rejected this teaching. The above hypothetical argument shows that once you reject this teaching of Bellarmine, the entire ecclesiology of the Catholic Church reduces to only one thing: obedience to the pope is only until you think he teaches something that contradicts dogma.

Bellarmine himself calls it “probable and can be piously believed”…he also said, "Since, however, it is not certain, and since the common opinion is to the contrary, it is useful to examine what solution should be given to that question, in the hypothesis that the Pope could be a heretic.”

Btw, I hold to Bellarmine’s “probable and can be piously believed” opinion because he is a Doctor of the Universal Church. He never called it certain and he admits that the common opinion of the theologians is the contrary.
itsjustdave:

Once one accepts Bellarmines traditional Catholic teaching 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." (De Pontifice Romano, Bk 4, ch. 6), the sedevacantist claims become absurd unless they have further evidence from history that person the entire world believes occupies the office of Roman Pontiff was not really “duly elected.”

I accept it as I stated above. It’s you who don’t accept his clear teaching on the nature of heresy.

SFD

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

When I knew them they were connected with Lefebrevrfe’s group.
Maybe they have reformed themselves since them

peace

The FSSP has never been “connected” the the SSPX. The FSSP began as a group of Priest who left the SSPX when the SSPX consecrated the Bishops. The FSSP has been in normal union with Rome from the very beginning (it was established in 1988) and has never been connected with the SSPX.

Now, you have an obligation to undo the damage you have just done by publicly claiming that the FSSP is in anyway outside of the Church.

At least two times you have condemned a group that has done nothing wrong.

 

[mgrfin]

SFD

Are you still up to this schismatic nonsense.

Bellarmine would never support you, and no pope, none, has been guilty of manifest, notorious heresy. If the best you can do is come up with a ‘probable’ opinion, you are off the mark. Limbo has a higher theological note than that.

You love these theological notes, and raming such down our throats. I and others are not impressed. St. Robert would be spinning in his tomb if he knew he was being used to support the schimatic, heretic position of those ultra-conservatives like you.

You have failed to answer the qjuestion whether you believed that Angelo Roncali died as Pope, or did you vacate his see? Please answer the question. He was a great pope. I have a great sketch of him in my study. I hope they canonize him in my lifetime.

That will happen with JPII who is another on the list of those hated by the ultraconservatives like you.

Nowadays, the Pope is not under the Canon Law referring to penalties, and cenures. Ballgame over. Whether he ever was I doubt.

I had hoped by now that Adminstration would have shut down this site which is an attack on the Papacy, which is forbidden by Canon Law. Hopefully they will do it.

Peace

 

[mgrfin]

The FSSP has never been “connected” the the SSPX. The FSSP began as a group of Priest who left the SSPX when the SSPX consecrated the Bishops. The FSSP has been in normal union with Rome from the very beginning (it was established in 1988) and has never been connected with the SSPX.

Now, you have an obligation to undo the damage you have just done by publicly claiming that the FSSP is in anyway outside of the Church.

At least two times you have condemned a group that has done nothing wrong.

The FSSP then was at one time connected with SSPX.
For the rest I may have been mistaken. I am sure they forgive me in my apology.

My error is far less than your errors of accusing the good Popes of heresy, popes from Pius IX through Benedict XVI. Even suggesting such is horrendous.

My, aren’t you high and mighty, condemning me on one hand for a minor error, and your error of accusing the Papacy, not in one person, but serveral, of public, manifest, notorious heresy.

Maybe you will apologize for these ‘errors’ of yours.

peace
.

 

[SFD]

You have failed to answer the qjuestion whether you believed that Angelo Roncali died as Pope, or did you vacate his see? Please answer the question.

I did answer it.

Now answer my question.

SFD:

mgrfin,

So heresy is a sin and a crime. What were heretics guilty of before there was any Code of Canon Law?

SFD

SFD

 

[mgrfin]

I did answer it.

Now answer my question.

SFD

my question: when was there no code of canon law?

for an answer to the question, check out the scriptures.

What, you have a pope whose Sedis you would like to vacate?

It’s a meaningless, irrelevant question.

It is also off-thread. Maybe the Adminstrator should close this site since it is not going anywhere.

peace

 

[SFD]

my question: when was there no code of canon law?

for an answer to the question, check out the scriptures.

peace

mgrfin,

That’s not an answer.

SFD:

mgrfin,

So heresy is a sin and a crime. What were heretics guilty of before there was any Code of Canon Law?

SFD

SFD

 

[mgrfin]

mgrfin,

That’s not an answer.

SFD

what, you don’t have a theological note for the scriptures?

you are taking this thread off-topic - again
I refuse to anwer your question which will take us further off-thread.

Attacking the papacy is scandalous to Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

I hope that the Forum Administrators will close this thread. It is not going anywhere.

peace

 

[SFD]

what, you don’t have a theological note for the scriptures?

you are taking this thread off-topic - again
I refuse to anwer your question which will take us further off-thread.

mgrfin,

You can’t answer the question…but that is obvious to all by now…so I hardly think it’s necessary.

peace.

SFD

 

[pnewton]

Clever yourself Dave, to attempt to paint me Jansenist.

It was clever and points out but one more fallacy with sedevacantists. The site may have been Jansenist, but they were also sedevacantist. So, even if one were to give any credence to sedevacantism as a possibility, which flavor would be right. You guys as more split up than protestants could ever be, and in a shorter period of time. There is no consistency on who the first heretic pope was. I found three different people who are considered by different groups to THE pope. Now I find some who are heretics themselves. When you splinter off from the authority of Rome, it is no wonder that the splintering continues. No pope, no unity, no future.

 

[Four_Marks]

mgrfin,

You can’t answer the question…but that is obvious to all by now…so I hardly think it’s necessary.

peace.

SFD

Of course he can’t answer the question. But it’s fun watching him squirm.

 

[SFD]

It was clever and points out but one more fallacy with sedevacantists.

Calling it “clever” was not a compliment.

The site may have been Jansenist, but they were also sedevacantist. So, even if one were to give any credence to sedevacantism as a possibility, which flavor would be right.

Sede vacante just means a vacant See. The indefectibility and unity of the Church that are the underlying principles behind it. It is a temporary condition when a See is vacant.

You guys as more split up than protestants could ever be, and in a shorter period of time. There is no consistency on who the first heretic pope was.

Why is this so important?

I found three different people who are considered by different groups to THE pope.

They are false claimants who are accepted by almost no one. It’s obvious why they are false claimants…isn’t it?

Now I find some who are heretics themselves.

How do you judge them as heretics? What de fide teaching do they explicitly deny?

When you splinter off from the authority of Rome, it is no wonder that the splintering continues. No pope, no unity, no future.

How ironic…let’s take a look at this more closely.

St. Robert Bellarmine’s doctrine on the membership of the Church is the basis for the presentation in the Encyclical Mystici Corporis. In that Encyclical, four requirements for membership are given: those who are baptized, who profess the Faith integrally, who submit to the lawful authority of the Pope and hierarchy in communion with him, and who have not been excluded from the Church by excommunication. Thus, heretics, schismatics, infidels, and excommunicates are excluded from the Church, even though they are baptized. Heretics and excommunicates are two different categories. In the case of the former (and schismatics as well), they are excluded by their own actions; in the case of excommunicates, they are excluded by the Church’s judgment, in punishment of crimes committed.

Those who claim, by whatever reasoning, that Benedict XVI is truly Pope, implicitly accept that the Church has no visible unity in faith. They accept as members of the Church not only him, but all the bishops in his communion, and all those who openly reject both the teachings and the authority of the Church, none of whom, or virtually none, have been excommunicated. Thus they deny, in effect, the unity of the Church. Pax et Caritas, for example, has no difficulty admitting that Paul VI and John Paul II were heretics, as well as schismatics, apostates, and scandals, and he proves this abundantly, but he still claims that they remain members of the Church. This is to deny the teaching of the Doctors, the Popes, and canon law itself. It is to reduce the Church to a mere political unity, like the Protestants, who have no unity of faith at all, even within a single sect.

SFD

 

[pnewton]

They are false claimants who are accepted by almost no one. It’s obvious why they are false claimants…isn’t it?

Well I think so, but then I would also think it is rather obvious who the pope is. If one is to deny that Pope Benedict is Pope, I would not be surprised at anything that came from them. Electing their own pope would seem to be a logical step.

How do you judge them as heretics? What de fide teaching do they explicitly deny?

You are right and I was mistaken. Jansenist were never judged heretics. I would have to look closer at these people to see if they were so hypercalvinist enough to be heretics. No point though since they are sedevacantist and don’t even recognize the Pope. Heck even if they disagree with anything said in Catholic history, they could just claim that person was the heretic and thereby irrelevant.

How ironic…let’s take a look at this more closely.

St. Robert Bellarmine’s doctrine on the membership of the Church is the basis for the presentation in the Encyclical Mystici Corporis. In that Encyclical, four requirements for membership are given: those who are baptized, who profess the Faith integrally, who submit to the lawful authority of the Pope and hierarchy in communion with him, and who have not been excluded from the Church by excommunication. Thus, heretics, schismatics, infidels, and excommunicates are excluded from the Church, even though they are baptized.

I don’t get it. This seems like a slam dunk case against sedevacantism. The total lack of agreement or even communion between the sects as opposed to the unity with in the Catholic Church. One would think the numbers alone would speak for themselves. It is not like sedevacantist are a significant movement. So why do you and others get so upset when others say you are not Catholic? I will not say that St Bellarmine is the final say in all matters. But since he is quoted so much, shouldn’t you accept that we do not acknowledge those who fail to submit to the lawful authority of the Pope as being Catholic?

Those who claim, by whatever reasoning, that Benedict XVI is truly Pope

" by whatever reasoning?" The white smoke, the conclave… Surely you must have seen it. It was in all the papers. Most of us just aren’t clever enough to be smarter than the whole of the College of Cardinals, the thousands of faithful bishops, tens of thousands of priest and the Holy Spirit.

Maybe it’s just a matter of faith.

 

[SFD]

post #97:

itsjustdave1988:

SFD:

Dave,

No, I think that is incorrect.

I think your’e right.

itsjustdave1988:

SFD:

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.

Dave,

I sent you several PM’s with ample evidence that Bp. Gasser did not claim that Bellarmine’s adopted Pighuis’ opinion as certain. I have heard nothing from you since.

Here’s what Bellarmine said:

"Since, however, it (Pighuis’ opinion) is not certain, and since the common opinion is to the contrary, it is useful to examine what solution should be given to that question, in the hypothesis that the Pope could be a heretic.”

So Bellarmine says the common opinion is to the contrary.

Below is proof that your claim is false and also that you misunderstood Bp. Gasser in his relatio:

“… This is plain from Bellarmine’s own pages where he expounds Pighi’s opinion: It is probable, and can be piously believed, not only that the Supreme Pontiff cannot err as Pontiff, but also, as an individual person cannot be a heretic, by pertinaciously believing against the Faith anything false. (De. Rom. Pont., lib. iv, cap vi.). From the testimony of this passage, it is obvious that the doctrine of the schema is not the view of Albert Pighi nor the extreme view of any school. It is Bellarmine’s view, the very self-same one which he teaches in the place cited by the most reverend orator, and which he calls certissimam and asserendam or rather, as he says, revising his statement, sententiam communissimam et certam.”

James Broderick, S.J., “Robert Bellarmine,” Longmans, Green and Co., 1928 & 1950, Vol. I, pp. 188, 189.

Also, Bp. Zinnelli, relator of the Faith at Vatican I, on the opinion of Pighuis:

“Confident in supernatural Providence, we judge it to be quite probable that that will never happen. But God does not fail in the things that are necessary; therefore, if He permits so great an evil, the means to remedy such a situation will not be lacking.” – Bp. Zinnelli, Relator of the Faith, Vatican I as quoted by Joaquin Salaverri.

Fr. Joaquin Salaverri, S.J., also presents this opinion as follows:

“As a private person, can the Pope fall into heresy? The theologians dispute about this question. To us it seems more pious and more probable to admit that God will take care, by his Providence, that never will a Pope be a heretic”.

Franzelin also presents the following:
Cardinal Franzelin:

ON PAPAL HERESY

1. “Therefore no power exists in the Church, which can lessen or take away the supreme power, with all its rights, divinely conferred on the Pontiff, once established [in office]. The power instituted by Christ and conferred on the successor of Peter, cannot cease in him except by voluntary renuntiation [resignation] … or voluntary DEFECTION FROM THE CHURCH BY MANIFEST AND CONTUMACIOUS HERESY. That this scandal could come about is doubted, NOT WITHOUT REASON, BY THEOLOGIANS [note it is a doubt, not a certainty], in view of the sweet providence of Christ towards His Church and the divine promises themselves; since it is a question of him who, formally as pastor and doctor of the Church, by Christ’s promise and institution, by divine assistence, cannot err in definitions; and since in fact this has never happened. (Cf. Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. IV, cc. 6,7).” (Ibid., p. 226)

SFD