What's a sedevacantist?

[itsjustdave1988]

… it is not recognition or admonition of heresy which condemns the heretic but his own sin of heresy!

This begs the question: how does the “suspicion of heresy” become the crime of heresy? Paul’s letter presumes the existence of the crime of heresy already, so it doesn’t help answer this question. His letter to Titus (Titus 3:10) simply does not delve into such specifics.

Paul does NOT say that one “suspected of heresy” is to be avoided. Thus, when canon law speaks of one merely “suspected of heresy,” then Titus 3:10 does not yet apply.

Elsewhere, Scritpure does, as does the Church in its canon law. Matt 18:15-17 DOES describe in greater detail how one can have moral certainty regarding whether someone is merely suspected of heresy or whether one is pertinaciously guilty of the crime of heresy.

 

[MTD]

Hmmmm…the only understanding I presented was that the apostolic constitution of Paul IV is no longer in force, but the electoral norms of Pius XII were in force at the time of John XXIII’s election. Quoting disciplinary norms prior to canon law of Pius X does little to shed light upon the canonical norms in place during Pius XII’s pontificate.

Dave, you may not have directly said it, but your post implied to me that you think a manifest heretic validly participates in a papal conclave according to Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis because excommunication is not an impediment to participation. But a manifest heretic is not prevented from participation in a conclave because of any ecclesiastical penalty he may have incurred, of which excommunication is one, but because by Divine law he is cut off from the Church. Thus Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis does not apply to the sedevacantist argument at all.

When Pius X promulgated his Apostolic Constitution on the election of the sovereign pontiff (25, Dec 1904), he explicitly “***abrogated ***EVERY AND EACH OF THE DECREES AND CONSTITUTIONS which were enacted by all and each of the Roman Pontiffs, even if they had been promulgated by general councils and are part of the code of law.”

Thus, when one cites an abrogated 16th cent. apostolic constitution, it fails to be convincing in determining the electoral norms hundreds of years later.

Divine law cannot be abrogated by a pope. The fact of a manifest heretic being invalid matter for the papacy is a matter of Divine law, the Divine law that causes a heretic to be cut off from the Church.

According to the canonical norms, there’s a certain canonical means to determine pertinacity…

“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).

Those merely suspectus de haeresi, according to the code, retained their membership in the Church, and their office.

Moreoever, Cardinals were afforded special priviledges according to the 1917 CIC. “When not expressly mentioned, cardinals are not subject to penal laws, nor are bishops to suspension or inderdict latae sententiae (can. 2227)” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1918 edition, p. 29).

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?

It seems you are confusing Divine law with ecclesiastical law. You are outlining ecclesiastical procedures for declaring and punishing a manifest heretic publicly. But these ecclesiastical measures and excommunication have no bearing on whether a manifest heretic can be pope, for, as Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis says, no ecclesiastical penalty prevents a cardinal from participating in the conclave. A manifest heretic cannot become pope for the simple fact that he is cut off from the Church by Divine law. And the Church has no power to abrogate that law. Even if Cardinal Roncalli were excommunicated publicly by the Church as a public heretic, following all the ecclesiastical procedures you mentioned, that in itself would not prevent him from participating in the conclave, for ecclesiastical penalties are waived by Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis for this purpose.

Thus, the sedevacantist argument is so unconvincing its astonishing.

I am not a sedevacantist, but I love and seek the truth. After all, “the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32) A careful and objective study of the teaching of the Church with regards to manifest heretics and their status in respect to the Church reveals that the sedevacantists have it right on this particular point. Try reading my posts another time, and you might see a little more what I mean. There is nothing to fear in discovering that the sedevacantists are right on this point; it does not mean per se that sedevacantists are right about the papal seat being vacant.

Maria

 

[MTD]

This begs the question: how does the “suspicion of heresy” become the crime of heresy?

How can our suspicion become another’s crime? Our recognition or lack thereof has nothing to do with whether another person loses his membership in the Church. He does it to himself; we have no part in it.

Paul’s letter presumes the existence of the crime of heresy already, so it doesn’t help answer this question. His letter to Titus (Titus 3:10) simply does not delve into such specifics.

St. Paul’s letter presumes the existence of manifest heresy. No one is admonished in heresy if he does not externally express it, for no one would know about it.

Paul does NOT say that one “suspected of heresy” is to be avoided.

Yes, but we’re not talking about someone who’s suspected of heresy. Such a one is not manifest because he’s only suspected.

Thus, when canon law speaks of one merely “suspected of heresy,” then Titus 3:10 does not yet apply.

We’re talking Divine law here. A manifest heretic loses his membership and is to be avoided regardless of whether he is canonically punished or not.

Elsewhere, Scritpure does, as does the Church in its canon law. Matt 18:15-17 DOES describe in greater detail how one can have moral certainty regarding whether someone is merely suspected of heresy or whether one is pertinaciously guilty of the crime of heresy.

Let’s not confuse the canonical procedure for punishing a heretic with the fact that a manifest heretic loses membership in the Church by his own doing. The canonical procedure merely confirms what has already happened through Divine law.

Maria

 

[MMLJ]

Let us put an end to this rhetoric shall we?

IV. GRAVITY OF THE SIN OF HERESY

Heresy is a sin because of its nature it is destructive of the virtue of Christian faith. Its malice is to be measured therefore by the excellence of the good gift of which it deprives the soul. Now faith is the most precious possession of man, the root of his supernatural life, the pledge of his eternal salvation. Privation of faith is therefore the greatest evil, and deliberate rejection of faith is the greatest sin. St. Thomas (II-II, Q. x, a. 3) arrives at the same conclusion thus: "All sin is an aversion from God. A sin, therefore, is the greater the more it separates man from God. But infidelity does this more than any other sin, for the infidel (unbeliever) is without the true knowledge of God: his false knowledge does not bring him help, for what he opines is not God: manifestly, then, the sin of unbelief ( infidelitas) is the greatest sin in the whole range of perversity."*** And he adds:*** "Although the Gentiles err in more things than the Jews, and although the Jews are farther removed from true faith than heretics, yet the unbelief of the Jews is a more grievous sin than that of the Gentiles, because they corrupt the Gospel itself after having adopted and professed the same. . . . It is a more serious sin not to perform what one has promised than not to perform what one has not promised." It cannot be pleaded in attenuation of the guilt of heresy that heretics do not deny the faith which to them appears necessary to salvation, but only such articles as they consider not to belong to the original deposit. In answer it suffices to remark that two of the most evident truths of the depositum fidei are the unity of the Church and the institution of a teaching authority to maintain that unity. That unity exists in the Catholic Church, and is preserved by the function of her teaching body: these are two facts which anyone can verify for himself. In the constitution of the Church there is no room for private judgment sorting essentials from non-essentials: any such selection disturbs the unity, and challenges the Divine authority, of the Church; it strikes at the very source of faith. The guilt of heresy is measured not so much by its subject-matter as by its formal principle, which is the same in all heresies: revolt against a Divinely constituted authority. *

(The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII. Published 1910. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York)*

newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm

To Summarize:
-Heresy is a sin because of its nature it is destructive of the virtue of Christian faith.
-Privation of faith is therefore the greatest evil, and deliberate rejection of faith is the greatest sin.
-St. Thomas (II-II, Q. x, a. 3) arrives at the same conclusion thus: "All sin is an aversion from God. A sin, therefore, is the greater the more it separates man from God.
-The guilt of heresy is measured not so much by its subject-matter as by its formal principle, which is the same in all heresies: revolt against a Divinely constituted authority.

To be Sede Vacante or not To be Sede Vacante is ‘NOT’ the Question, Heresy is any shape or form is not good but ultimately evil.

 

[rescath]

How can our suspicion become another’s crime? Our recognition or lack thereof has nothing to do with whether another person loses his membership in the Church. He does it to himself; we have no part in it.

I disagree with that. We (or, rather, the Church) do have a part. Otherwise, even occult heretics would be fully separated from the Church and would lose jurisdiction. When it comes to losing jurisdiction, the heresy has to be manifest.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Dave, you may not have directly said it, but your post implied to me that you think a manifest heretic validly participates in a papal conclave according to Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis …

Yes, you seem a bit eager to argue against a position I have not taken. It seems as though you often are in violent agreement with those you argue with.

I’ve already stated what I believe here and on other sedevacantist threads…

1. Manifest heretics are no longer joined to the Church. Yet, what does that mean? It must connot pertinacity (formal heresy), not merely manifest material heresy.
2. Those merely “suspected of heresy” are not “manifest heretics” and therefore are still joined to the Church.
3. *“In 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)]
4. Those suspected of heresy are to be warned, debarred, and penalized in accordance with the prescriptions of canon law, such law can never being contrary to Divine law (cf. Pius VI, *Auctorem Fidei, *78).

According to 1917 CIC, Can. 2315. “Suspectus de haeresi, qui monitus causam suspicionis non removeat, actibus legitimis prohibeatur, et clericus praeterea, repetita inutiliter monitione, suspendatur a divinis; quod si intra sex menses a contracta poena completos suspectus de haeresi sese non emendaverit, habeatur tanquam haereticus, haereticorum poenis obnoxius.”

The states in essence, “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).

Furthermore, according to Cardinal Billot:

“God may allow that a vacancy of the Apostolic See last for a while. He may also permit that some doubt be risen about the legitimacy of such or such election. However, God will never allow the whole Church to recognize as Pontiff someone who is not really and lawfully. Thus, as long as a pope is accepted by the Church, and united with her like the head is united to the body, one can no longer raise any doubt about a possible defective election… For the universal acceptance of the Church heals in the root any vitiated election." Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi (1927-1929), Vol. I, pp. 612-613].

My question remains, if anyone is to believe the dubious claim that Cardinal Roncalli was “suspectus de haeresi” before the election, then IAW 1917 CIC, can. 2315, who warned him and when? What evidence do we have that he ignored the worning and was debarred? Who debarred him? What evidence do we have that after debarrment, he was recalcitrant for six months? Who penalized after his recalcitrance?

I get that canon law cannot abrogate Divine law. I haven’t claim that it can. However, I understand that it is theologically certain that canon law can NEVER be contrary to Divine law, and so canon 2315 above is fully in accord with Titus 3:10 and everything else in Divine law.

Now, the above covers the “what if he was a heretic before the election” suspicion. To be a manifest heretic, the above canonical norms were required for determining pertinacity.

For the “what if he was a heretic after the election,” I reply that I agree with what St. Robert Bellarmine called the “most common and probable” opinion: “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]

Divine law cannot be abrogated by a pope. The fact of a manifest heretic being invalid matter for the papacy is a matter of Divine law, the Divine law that causes a heretic to be cut off from the Church.

I don’t know who you are shadow-boxing with, but it ain’t me. Pius X did not abrogate Divine Law, he DID abrogate Paul IV’s constitution, thus it no longer applicable. What is applicable? Divine Law in accordance with 1917 CIC. It did apply, as well as the papal election norms Pius XII established.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

How can our suspicion become another’s crime?

Again…you are shadow-boxing against something I have not stated. Where did you get “OUR” suspicion from my post? Nonetheless, the laity are empowered to manifest their opinion for the good of the Church. If we suspect our superior is teaching heresy, we do indeed have an obligation to the Church is applying Matt 18:15-17.

 

[rescath]

However, though I made the concession that there seems to be the possibility of a council being needed to recognize the heresy of a pope before he loses jurisdiction, I have some serious reservations about it.

1. It is the external expression itself and not the recognition thereof that causes non-membership in the church and thus loss of any jurisdiction. A heretic by outwardly expressing his pertinacity in heresy condemns himself. If it were the recognition of the external expression rather than the external expression itself which causes non-membership in the Church, it would not be the heretic who condemns himself but another person, for he would not lose jurisdiction except by someone else’s recognition of his external expression.

Manifest heresy itself effects deposition, but the heresy does not become manifest until it’s recognized, and the recognition of manifest formal pertinacious heresy must come from the authority of the Church. There’s a chain of causality. Recognition causes heresy to be manifest, and then the manifest heresy deposes. Conversely, if there’s no real heresy, but someone thinks they see heresy (e.g. a sedevacantist ), there’s no deposition. There must be a conjuction of fact and knowledge of the fact. That’s no different than the scenario you have proposed except that I say it’s not enough for JUST ANYONE – through private judgment – to recognize heresy, but that it must be known by the Church. Without that element of recognition, the heresy would remain occult and would not depose and deprive of jurisdiction. Heresy must be manifest to the Church in order for the Church-supplied jurisdiction of the Church to cease, and I dare say that Bishop Sanborn or Father Cekada are not to be equated with the Church.

Once we establish this fact, it seems an impossibility for a council to be necessary for a pope to lose jurisdiction, for the necessity of a council to recognize the manifest pertinacity in heresy of a pope says that it is the recognition of the external expression rather than the external expression itself which causes loss of jurisdiction.

Not at all. There’s no difference except in the agent of recognition – sedevacantists state that anyone can know about / recognize heresy in order for it to be manifest and cause loss of jurisdiction, while I say that it must be the Church. In either case there’s a required combination of sin of heresy and recognition of heresy.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… No one is admonished in heresy if he does not externally express it, for no one would know about it.

I’d go further in stating that one who merely externally expresses heresy is not what St. Paul is talking about in Titus 3:10. The term “is a heretic” denotes one who is not merely expressing a teaching contrary to the faith, but connotes one who does so pertinaciously. Some translations use instead of “heretic,” “factious” which means “inclined to faction.”

For instance, Pope Honorius claimed in a papal letter there was but one will in Christ. Did he “manifest” or “externally express” this teaching? Yes. Was he being factious? No. This is an example of manifest material heresy. Pertinacity was lacking, and so Divine law did not separate him from the body of the Church, nor jurisdiction as Roman Pontiff.

We’re talking Divine law here. A manifest heretic loses his membership and is to be avoided regardless of whether he is canonically punished or not.

This sounds circular to me. One must use BOTH Divine and Ecclesiastical law to determine pertinacity, which determines whether one is “factious” or merely mistaken (material heresy). Othewise, Honorius ceasted to be pope the moment he wrote “one will” in a letter to the patriarch of Constantinople. But he didn’t. Divine law connotes pertinacity, not simply manifest material heresy.

 

[gorman64]

Hi, gorman64,

I’ll respond to you when I am able. Perhaps it’s not worth it. You’re probably not going to be convinced by anything I have to say, and I have no personal axe to grind. It’s getting late (by my standards) and I’m getting sleepy.

I’m posting as a former sedevacantist myself. Try not to get too bent out of shape; please don’t let sedevacantism disturb your peace of soul. I know whereof I speak, since I see my former self in the tone of some of your words.

Peace, gorman64, and God bless you.

Dear rescath,

Were you planning to respond to me?

I’m beginning to think you’ve given up on me…but not the others…why?

Yours,

Gorman

P.S.

rescath:

Manifest heresy itself effects deposition, but the heresy does not become manifest until it’s recognized, and the recognition of manifest formal pertinacious heresy must come from the authority of the Church.

Do you have any sources that teach this?

 

[rescath]

1. If a manifest heretic pope does not lose the papcy until a council recognizes his pertinacious heresy, said pope retains jurisdiction up to that time. But according to canon law, only the pope can legally call an ecumenical council. Thus it is a juridical impossibility for a council to convene without the call of the pope. Not only that, but as long as he retains jurisdiction, he has the power to disperse any council, lawfully convened or not. This means it is also a practical impossibility for a council to convene, for at each convention the pope can legally disperse it (since what heretical pope wouldn’t disperse a council convened to decide his heretical status?!).

While a Council must be ecumenical in order to define doctrine or enact discipline binding upon the whole Church, a Council, albeit non-ecumenical, would adequately reflect the sensus fidelium in terms of establishing the fact of manifest heresy. So what would be your alternative proposal, that Fathers Cekada and Pulvermacher can recognize heresy and render it somehow objectively manifest? What if they’re wrong? What happens if others disagree and don’t believe that something is heresy? It’s manifest to some and not manifest to others? Father Cekada says there’s heresy; I say there isn’t. So what’s the objective state of the matter? Let’s put it in terms of a concrete example. You differ from sedevantists (e.g., gorman) not in principle but in terms of whether you perceive there to be manifest heresy among the Vatican II popes. So which of you is right with regard to your assessment of manifest heresy: you or the sedevacantists? A Council would speak for and represent all the faithful in recognizing the manifest heresy. Anything else is ad absurdum

 

[rescath]

Dear rescath,

Were you planning to respond to me?

I’m beginning to think you’ve given up on me…but not the others…why?

Yours,

Gorman

P.S.

Do you have any sources that teach this?

I’m sorry. I didn’t deliberately ignore you. I am unable to post for long periods time (i.e. while I’m at work) and I have a tendency to read backwards from and respond to the most recent posts.

I’ll probably get back to you later tonight – after my kids go to bed.

 

[gorman64]

itsjustdave1988:

This sounds circular to me. One must use BOTH Divine and Ecclesiastical law to determine pertinacity, which determines whether one is “factious” or merely mistaken (material heresy). Othewise, Honorius ceasted to be pope the moment he wrote “one will” in a letter to the patriarch of Constantinople. But he didn’t. Divine law connotes pertinacity, not simply manifest material heresy.

Dave:

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 quite 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 were not fully grasped, or if one were incapable of distinguishing between divine and ecclesiastical law.

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30.:

“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.”

"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope * in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: ‘He would not be able to retain the episcopate *, and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.’ **

This should be sufficient proof of the SV position on this point. 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, that is, that it is a matter of divine law that only a Catholic is valid matter for the papacy.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[gorman64]

While a Council must be ecumenical in order to define doctrine or enact discipline binding upon the whole Church, a Council, albeit non-ecumenical, would adequately reflect the sensus fidelium in terms of establishing the fact of manifest heresy. So what would be your alternative proposal, that Fathers Cekada and Pulvermacher can recognize heresy and render it somehow objectively manifest? What if they’re wrong? What happens if others disagree and don’t believe that something is heresy? It’s manifest to some and not manifest to others? Father Cekada says there’s heresy; I say there isn’t. So what’s the objective state of the matter? Let’s put it in terms of a concrete example. You differ from sedevantists (e.g., gorman) not in principle but in terms of whether you perceive there to be manifest heresy among the Vatican II popes. So which of you is right with regard to your assessment of manifest heresy: you or the sedevacantists? A Council would speak for and represent all the faithful in recognizing the manifest heresy. Anything else is ad absurdum

Dear rescath,

I think you are wrong in the above, indicated in bold. If a heresy is manifest, it is known as manifest. The pertinacious will must also be manifest.

St. Robert Bellarmine says that a manifest heretic would automatically lose his office. If the heretic is “manifest” as a heretic then his pertinacity is manifest.

The recognition of the manifest heretic is not what causes the heretic to be manifest. The heretic makes his heresy and his pertinacious will manifest by his own words and actions.

In Christ,

Gorman

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Dave:

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

I have not argued contrary to this. However, I understand the term “public heretic” to mean one who has pertinaciously and manifestly taught doctrines contrary to Catholic dogma. I do not agree that “public heretic” is the same as one merely “*suspectus de haeresi” *(1917 CIC, canon 2315). Why would one be *suspectus de haeresi *if not because of something “public” or “manifest.” Part of the problem is ambiguous terms.

If we all understand “public heretic” or “manifest heretic” does not include those like Pope Honorius, who did indeed publically manifest a teaching contrary to the faith, but did not do so pertinaciously, then we no longer need to continue in violent agreement on this matter.

The SV argument seems to unconvincingly equate “suspectus de haeresi” with “public heretic.”

I find no evidence that Cardinal Roncalli was even *suspectus de haeresi, *let alone a “public heretic.” If the evidence is so manifest, then the SV’s have done a really lousy job of making their case.

 

[gorman64]

The SV argument seems to unconvincingly equate “suspectus de haeresi” with “public heretic.”

Dave:

No one said it did equate the two. It is not relevant to the point of this discussion.

I assume that you then agree with St. Robert Bellarmine here:

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30.:

“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.”

"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope * in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: ‘He would not be able to retain the episcopate *, and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.’ **

Yours in Christ,

Gorman

 

[MMLJ]

St. Bellarmine teaches:
"A heretical pope automatically loses his office"

The fifth opinion therefore is the true one. A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction. (De Romano Pontifice, II.30.)

Bellarmine then cites passages from Cyprian, Driedonus and Melchior Cano in support of his position. ***The basis for this teaching, he says finally, is that a manifest heretic is in no way a member of the Church ***—neither of its soul nor its body, neither by an internal union nor an external one.

Thus the writings of Bellarmine, far from condemning the sedevacantist position, provide the central principle upon which it is based—that a pope who becomes a manifest heretic automatically loses his office and jurisdiction.

Nor is Bellarmine’s teaching an isolated opinion. It is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers, he assures us. And the principle he enunciated has been reiterated by theologians and canonists right into the 20th century, including commentators on the 1983 Code of Canon Law promulgated by John Paul II himself.

Those who would recognize John Paul II as pope while disregarding all his commands, therefore, can take no consolation whatsoever in the passage from Bellarmine.

It is the sedevacantist position, rather, that is supported by the teaching of the great Robert Bellarmine: a legitimate pope must be obeyed; a heretical pope loses his office.

(Sacerdotium, no. 12, Summer 1994).(catholicrestoration.org/)

Just to reiterate what probably has already been said.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread has veered away from the original topic of: “What is a sedevacantist?” Please start a new thread if you want to discuss side issues.

 

[MTD]

New thread to discuss those side issues: Manifest heretics, Divine law/ecclesiastical law, etc.

Itsjustdave1988 and rescath, I’m answering your posts on that thread.

Maria

 

[itsjustdave1988]

St. Bellarmine teaches:
"A heretical pope automatically loses his office"

Yes. This is a theological opinion which St. Robert offers in refutation to Cardinal Cajetan’s contrary opinion.

This opinion should be understood in context of what St. Robert Bellarmine also wrote elsewhere in *De Romano Pontifice., *in which he ***also teaches that the most common and probable opinion is: ***“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].

The above quote from St. Robert Bellarmine was 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).

So, from St. Robert’s perpective it is most probable that the Pope CANNOT pertinaciously believe something contrary to the faith, but if he could, than contary to Cardinal Cajetan’s view, he would automatically cease to be pope.

To get back to the “What’s a sedevacantist?” question…

A sedevacantist either believes there there is currently no validly elected pope, either because Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was never the duly elected pope, or after having been duly elected, they believe he did indeed pertinaciously manifest heretical doctrine contrary to the faith. To have the latter view, the sedevacantist would have to reject what St. Robert called “most common and probable” theological opinion, cited in the official relatio of the First Vatican Council…not a very “traditionalist” approach. To have the former view, the sedevacantist would have to satisfactorily explain why it is not historic fact that the Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is the duly elected pope.