St. Robert Bellarmine and the Pope-Heretic Question

[mgrfin]

This whole thread, and the topic name I find unseemly.

It is a scandal to Catholics on this thread, and I believe strongly that this thread should be closed forthwith. It only gives comfor to the devil to speak of the Holy Father as a heretic.

Jesus promised us a Church, and that the Holy Spirit would be with it for all days, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

Hell to me right now are all these sedevacantists. Please close this site.

peace

 

[SFD]

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.

But it’s not a logical step. Why do you think this? I am trying to get you to focus on the unity and visibility of the Church as key.

newton:

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.

Do they deny the Vatican I definition of Papal infallibility? If yes, what that make them?

newton:

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.

Actually, that site attacked sedevacantist Catholics until just recently. It’s always been a site promoting Jansenism.

newton:

SFD:

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

I don’t get it. This seems like a slam dunk case against sedevacantism.

You don’t “get it” because you fail to understand the concepts of unity and visibility as taught by Bellarmine.

newton:

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.

Unity is not about numbers. Protestants claim to be unified as christians…and there are alot of them.

newton:

It is not like sedevacantist are a significant movement.

Sedevacantists are just traditional Catholics who hold a theological opinion about the current claimant to the Papacy. There are a lot of “resistors” who are in the SSPX, FSSP, Independents, etc. They are unified in the Faith…that’s why they are resisting what is against the Faith.

newton:

So why do you and others get so upset when others say you are not Catholic?

Because I am a Catholic. And I know it is the last resort of someone who can’t argue their position very effectively.

newton:

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?

But traditional Catholics have had to “fail to submit” just to keep the Faith. We’re talking about the Bishops here too…don’t forget.

The position of St. Robert Bellarmine arises by simple logic from his definition of the Church as a visible institution. As such, it must have a visible membership, distinguishable from other men by visible (perceivable) means. The Church is a visible unity of faith. One who departs from that unity by a perceivable rejection of her teachings (a heretic), by this very fact ceases to belong to that unity, by his own act.

This position is taught clearly by the Popes. First of all, Bellarmine has been made a Doctor of the Church by them, and he is probably the leading theological authority on the Church and the papacy since the Reformation, whose errors he dedicated himself to refuting. Thus his teaching is recognized as solidly Catholic, on the highest authority.

" 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.

You’ve ignored the point of the post…the visible unity of Faith. Please read it again:

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]

Unity is not about numbers. Protestants claim to be unified as christians…and there are alot of them.

Unity is a number, the number one. There simply can not be two holy, catholic and apostolic churches. Protestants have no such claim. I do not know where you get that from. Several denominations believe they are the only true Church and others exclude some denominations as Christian. Numbers are not everything, but they are important. If out of a billion Catholics there were only a thousand in a sedevacantist sect, the, the odds that that thousand were right and the billion were wrong would be 1:1,000,000, based on numbers alone. Could the Holy Spirit do such a poor job of enlightening the billion yet succeed with the thousand? I doubt it. The numbers also serve a practical function. In a Church so large, even in the information age, no individual Catholic can chase down and examine every novel theory that comes along. Based on numbers, I never even examined the claims of the Old Catholic Church. I give sedevacantism only a cursory look. Once I see built in contradictions, I move on. I trust the Holy Spirit to work through the Church. The way I see it, I combine Occam’s Razor with faith in the Church that she will be safe guarded by the Holy Spirit. There is no way God would lead so many astray. It goes against everything God is. It goes against the mission of Christ. It is an insult to the Holy Spirit.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

The FSSP then was at one time connected with SSPX.

The FSSP has never been connected with the SSPX. They were established in 1998 by John Paul II and have never been conneted to the SPX.

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.

When have I ever accused Pope Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI,Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I or Benedict XVI or heresy? I consider all the Popes in that list up to John XXIII to have been great Popes and true defenders of the faith. Please provide the evidence for your slander or retract it.

The only Pope whose actions I have questioned, or called scandelous, are those of John Paul II who led many people - including the US Bishops - into error through his misleading teachings and scandelous example. For example, John Paul II repeatedly stated that “the Old Covenant was never revoked by God”. Based on this teaching of John Paul II the Great, the USCCB issued a document in 2002 that stated it is not longer theologically appropriate to attempt to convert the Jews, since “the old Covenant has never been revoked”. They quoted John Paul II numerous times as their authority for that false teaching. In addition there are now untold numbers of Catholics who believe the Old Covenant is still salvific, based on the words of John Paul II the Great.

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.

Interesting you would say that when I am the one arguing with the Sedevacantists about their position. I DO NOT think the post Vatican II Popes qualified as public manifest heretics. Why do you keep seeting up straw men, by accusing me of things I have never said?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

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.

The Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Petri (FSSP) or Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter are in full communion with the Holy See. I’ve been to their Latin Mass according to the 1962 liturgical norms, and they offer a wonderful liturgy with homilies faithful to Catholic doctrine.

As a student of theology, I’ve become used to disputes over theology. At such times, one is certainly called to “contend for the faith” (Jude 3), but we should always do so charitably.

One is not deemed a “heretic” simply because they differ with regard to that which is theology. In fact, one is not deemed a heretic in the ecclesial sense of the word, even if they obstinately doubt or deny that which is has* not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed* (see Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, *Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei, *par. 5-6]

I propose we “think with the Church” (St. Ignatius Loyola) with regard to the FSSP and also that which constitutes “heresy.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Clever yourself Dave, to attempt to paint me Jansenist.

I’m not painting you anything. Nor is there anything clever about it. I’m simply pointing out the obvious fact that the methodology used by sedevacantists can be used also by ANYONE who differs with the pope and no longer wants to obey him.

The Sedevacantist argument follows the following scheme:

1. Disputed Premise, which is erroneously trusted as absolutely certain: the pope taught heresy.
2. If that which is stated in (1) is true, then the pope MUST have only “appeared” to be the pope when he taught heresy, because we may not licitly dissent or disobey the “real” Pope in his doctrinal or disciplinary Acts of the Apostolic See demanded of the universal Church.
3. If that which is stated in (3) is true, he must have EITHER been not duly elected, or as a private person after election he must have been a “manifest heretic,” because he could not have been “valid matter” for the papacy before teaching heresy.
4. If that which was stated in (3) above is true, the chair of Peter is vacant.
5. If that which was stated in (4) above is true, then I need not assent or obey the person only “appearing” to be pope, but instead am justified in waiting out the really loooooong interregnum periord for the election of the next “real” pope.
   The above argument could be used ti discount the validity of any pope in Catholic history, and it is solely based upon “doing your own theology.” For instance, the Circumcision Party could say that St. Peter no longer constituted “valid matter” as pope prior to his Council of Jerusalem declaration. Since his declaration was clearly “heretical”, he must have been a “manifest heretic” as a “private person” prior to the council, thereby justifying the Circumcision Party’s dissent with the invalid pope. Since that time, we have been in a really loooooooooong interregnum period, and the Circumcision Party are the real “remnant” of the Catholic Church, patiently awaiting the day when the “valid pope” finally–after over 2000 years–gets elected and vindicates our position by condemning all the pope before him reaffirming the teaching of the Circumcision Party.

Nonetheless, anyone who has studied critical thinking knows that a conclusion is only as convincing as the premises they are based upon. Premise in (1) is the disputed premise. So building an argument which rest on it is as firm as nailing jello to a wall.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

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

I’m outlining the “common” argument as given to me by sedevacantists.

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

It’s not factual, based upon what?

BTW it is not “my fact” but the overwhelming conclusion of the entire world, including non-Catholic and secular historians, who maintain this as certain historical fact using the principles common to the study of history.

By definition, a Dogmatic fact of a duly elected pope is based upon two things: one dogma & one historic fact as it relates to that dogma.

The dogma is: the duly elected Roman Pontiff is the successor of Peter (pope).

Now its a matter of determining the HISTORIC certainty of who is the current Roman Pontiff. Using the principles common to the study of all history, this should not be very difficult. For example, every nation who recognizes the office of the Papacy, AFFIRMS Benedict XVI is the person holding that office. Furthermore, check any respected and unbiased history book, even those which are non-Catholic and secular, and they all AFFIRM that the successor of Pius XII was John XXIII, followed by John Paul I, followed by John Paul II, followed by Benedict XVI. To conclude otherwise is to live in a world having nothing to do with reality.

If you dissent with ALL HISTORIANS on this point, one can simply do his own survey. Go to Rome and ask the people of that diocese who their Bishop is. If you take an objective view of the evidence, you will find that the Bishop of Rome IN FACT is Benedict XVI. These are the CERTAIN facts of history, and to conclude otherwise WITHOUT ANY COMPELLING EVIDENCE to the contrary is indeed temerious.

If it is CERTAIN historical fact (as proved by the overwhelming evidence) that Benedict XVI was indeed duly elected as Bishop of Rome, and the overwhelming consensus of the diocese of Rome accepts him as such, and the universal Church and even the secular world accepts that he does indeed holds that office, then the second element of a DOGMATIC FACT is indeed fulfilled, that is, the a historic fact is CERTAIN.

Consequently, to reject dogmatic fact is to reject that which is “theologically certain,” a grave sin against the faith.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Those who claim, by whatever reasoning, that Benedict XVI is truly Pope, implicitly accept that the Church has no visible unity in faith.

Based upon what? The visible source of sacerdotal unity is the papacy, and the current Pope is Benedict XVI. There is no doubt about this certain fact.

Furthermore, Vatican II taught, congruent with St. Thomas Aquinas, and in fact purposefully citing St. Thomas Aquinas and Pius XII, that all are related to the Church, but in different ways, some “in actu” and some only in potential.

They accept as members of the Church not only him, but all the bishops in his communion

Of course we do.

… those who openly reject both the teachings and the authority of the Church

Only those who assent with mind and will to the dogma and doctrines of the Roman Pontiff, Benedict XVI, and obey approved disciplinary norms are in full communion with the Catholic Church. All else are separated, either internally, externally, or both from full communion.

…none of whom, or virtually none, have been excommunicated. Thus they deny, in effect, the unity of the Church.

Hmmmmm…so when Pope St. Stephen I chose not to excommunicate St. Cyprian, did he ALSO denied, “in effect, the unity of the Church?” Or, did he perhaps make a judgment of prudence not to excommunicate Cyprian, who SURELY defied the will of the pope? I think the latter is more compelling.

Pax et Caritas, for example, has no difficulty admitting that Paul VI and John Paul II were heretics…but he still claims that they remain members of the Church.

If this is indeed Pax et Caritas’ thesis, it deserves to be rejected just as much as the sedevacantist thesis.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I sent you several PM’s with ample evidence that Bp. Gasser did not claim that Bellarmine’s adopted Pighuis’ opinion as certain.

We seem to be talking past each other. Let me try to be more clear…

From what you sent…

“… This is plain from Bellarmine’s own pages**…[De. Rom. Pont., lib. iv, cap vi.]. From the testimony of this passage [De. Rom. Pont., lib. iv, cap vi.], it is obvious that the doctrine of the schema is not the view of Albert Pighi ****** nor the extreme view of any school. It [the view of Pighius] is Bellarmine’s view,* the very self-same one ***which he [Bellarmine] 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.
From the above, we can conclude:

1. Bellarmine held to Pighius proposition as proved in De. Rom. Pont., lib. iv, cap vi, and called “probable and pious.”

1. The schema is not “extreme” because what is contained within it is not only the opinion of Pighius, but is also proved by Bellarmine.

1. The self-same view held by both Pighius and Bellarmine is called “certain” in another text of Bellarmine, which is cited by the orator, called the “fourth place” by Gasser.

Consequently, that which is in the schema is based upon Bellarmine’s view in bk 4, ch.6, and the self-same teaching described by Bellarmine in another text as certain.

But which portion is called “certain” by Bellarmine? Since we don’t have the text cited by the orator, this is ambiguous. However, we can infer from Pastor Aeternus, as I conceded earlier, what is at least “certain” from the view of both Pighius and Bellarmine must be that portion of the proposition which states: the supreme Pontiff is not able to err as Pontiff. This can be inferred because within the schema discussed, it no where describes the other portion of the Pighius/Bellarmine proposition: “even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith.”

While this does not rule out that Bellarmine intended to include the entire proposition as “certain,” it might be inferred from the available texts that he only meant a portion of the proposition, even though the entire chapter 6 of De Pont. Rom, bk 4 is entitled: De pontifice ut* est particu**laris quaedam persona.*

One would have to see the specific passages cited by the orator, called “the fourth place” by Gasser to see what precisely was called “certain” by Bellarmine in that text.

Nonetheless, as already stated, whether you believe all of Pighius/Bellarmine’s proposition is “certain” or whether you believe it merely “probable and pious,” is not as important as the logical consequence of rejected this teaching of Bellarmine. 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 binding until you think he teaches something that contradicts dogma.

Consequently, if Bellarmine’s opinion is rejected, every heretic in the history of the Church could claim the sedevacantist argument as their own, as they all charge the pope with error in matters of faith.

 

[Ron_Conte]

One of the many problems with the sede vacantist position is that, once you claim that a Pope is not valid because of heresy, you are stuck making that claim about every successive Pope. Each successive Pope acknowledges his predecessor and often quotes his predecessor’s documents. As a result, sede vacantists have to look for a reason to claim that every successive Pope is heretic, or their entire position falls apart. So they end up claiming that Pope John Paul the first, who only reign for about 33 days, was a heretic. They have to find an excuse for accusing Benedict 16 of heresy. Otherwise, they’d have to admit that they were wrong.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

This whole thread, and the topic name I find unseemly.

It is a scandal to Catholics on this thread, and I believe strongly that this thread should be closed forthwith. It only gives comfor to the devil to speak of the Holy Father as a heretic.

I think that the discussion is valuable insofar as it remains charitable. It’s good Catholic theology to discuss such topics, just as St. Robert Bellarmine himself did. Nontheless, Bellarmine did so academically, as he never believed that any of the past popes ever pertinaciously believed or taught heresy, either as Pontiff or as a particular person. In union with Bellarmine, this too I believe.

My point in bringing up what Bellarmine taught in Bk 4, is that it gives the proper context to what Bellarmine’s theological dispute with Cajetan back in Bk 2.

Catholics claiming allegiance to “tradition,” citing Bellarmine for their cause ought to know that Bellarmine never held the view that a pope, either as a private person or as Pontiff, could pertinaciously become a heretic. This is proved by 2000 years of Catholic history and is temerious to assert otherwise. Bellarmine doesn’t help them unless they “pick and choose” from his “traditional” Catholic teaching only when it is convenient.

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Note:

This thread is closed. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion.