“It can be believed probably and piously 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 Romano Pontifice, book 4, chapter VI, cited by Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser of Brixen, in the official Relatio on the Proper Sense of the Proposed Doctrine of Papal Infallibility, prior to the vote on Pastor Aeternus (c. July 11, 1870)]
I’m trying to address the context of St. Robert’s assertion that “A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope.” Traditionalists use this quote often, but do so apart from the context of St. Robert states within De Romano Pontifce.
No, not at all. St. Robert Bellarmine thought it impossible that a pope could ever lose the faith and hence the papacy, he considered this opinion not theologically certain. This is why he went on to examine the question of what would happen were a pope to become a heretic.
One may also attend an Eastern Rite, such as Byzantine, if he or she cannot bring himself to attending a Novus Ordo. No acceptance of the liturgical novelties necessary.
Here is article 37 of PP:
I was very aware that Greek was the original language and for good reason and posted so elsewhere.
Are you not aware that the first liturgy in Rome was in Greek? When the liturgy was translated from Greek TO Latin it became vernacular. The Roman Missal was also translated into the vernacular Croat for the Croations and some other Slavic lands and the Eastern Catholic Churches always had vernacular liturgies. Of course Latin should be retained in the Liturgies, and no one is disputing that. There are Latin versions of the Novus Ordo, as Latin is the unifying language of the Western Church.
So you’re in fact saying the Pope has the power to dissolve any or all of the canons of a doctrinal council like the Council of Trent? Not to mention undermining the very council Vatican II he himself reconvened?Are you aware that Paul V (1605-1621) allowed the vernacular Mass in China?
Paul VI, by ratifying Vatican II, allowed some vernacular. Paul VI in 1975 allowed all vernacular. He’s the pope, the supreme legislator of the Church. Like Paul V, he can allow vernacular Mass in accordance with his plenary authority to govern the Church, distinct from the authority of a general council.
I guess Bob wasn’t around for the Knights of the Papolaters. As some will tell you, I’d be careful about the accusations you allude to, someone might just poke fun at it and drive you crazy for weeks! There’s a reason that the word papolatry doesn’t get used around here.
If you don’t define this term and then show how it applies to someone…it is just name-calling and it is of no value…actually negative value.
I do not believe that anyone believes that the pope is God and should be worshipped as such. This accusation is absurd. Citing God as authority does little more than beg the question.
Maybe I’m missing something, but what is the problem with this statement? If the bolded parts were removed there would be major issues, but they are not removed.
Can’t the Pope alter Canon law at his discretion?
Not in a way that is contrary to divine law.
Obviously a violation of the Ten Commandments would be contrary to divine law. But who determines what is divine law? Does each individual speak better for God than His representative? It seems we could all go in circles chasing or tales (begging the question) in this matter.
And God can’t make a square circle.
Yes, it does speak for itself. And nowhere does it authorize contraception, but does encourage responsible parenthood, “so long as these are in conformity with the dictates of the moral law.”
I think you’re missing the big point here. You’re right, he can’t**do it. It would be spiritually impossible for him to do so. Which, of course, will bring you right back to “he could if he really wasn’t the pope”. Which of course sets you up as the arbiter of the fact that the last 5 popes were not popes which is not within your purview. The I would have to come back with this:
In what context is this virtuous continence? Here is some context from Casti Connubii:
Canons are in general, disciplinary in nature, and are therefore generally not immutable. Some (but not all) canons, by their very nature, also are attested to in papal magisterial and councilar acts as being de fide tenenda or de fide credenda, which are non-immutable infallible dogmas. For example, Canon 1024, “Only a baptised man can validly receive sacred ordination.” The mere fact of an ecclesial canon does not makes this binding, but not necessarily definitive and immutable. However, by virtue of the authority of the other teachings of the universal ordinary magisterium, this is indeed an infallible and immutable dogma (cf. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis) which the pope does not have authority to dispense nor abrogate.
Of course God is Supreme Legislator, as well as the “head” of the Church. However, you seem totally unfamiliar with this term as it is used for the Roman Pontiff. “Supreme Legislator” is a term used to denote the plenary legislative power of the Roman Pontiff given to him by God. You seem confused over the the use of the word “supreme” in connection with papal authority.
