FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: CDF rejects SSPX second response
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
(02-06-2012, 11:31 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2012, 07:06 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2012, 05:27 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]I see.

But you concede that heretics are cut off from the Church by divine and not ecclesiastical law, right?

Firstly it should be pointed out that apostasy and heresy are two different things and the canon you referred to was regarding the former not the later.

And secondly yes, heretics are cut off from the church by divine law (at least this is the common opinion), however it does follow that they lose jurisdiction what would happen in the case of secretly heretical priests and bishops if their secret heresy made them lose jurisdiction? It would be total chaos and no one could be certain of anything, the church then can supply jurisdiction eclessia supplet and higher authorities i.e the Pope or the bishop in the case of priests can supply jursidiction notwithstanding the persons heresy.

The Church makes distinctions between material and formal heresy (internal forum), and notorious, public, and manifest heresy (external forum).

Please take note of the fact that every theologian who discusses the ipso facto deposition of a heretic from an office of authority in the Church mentions that his automatic deposition is effected by notorious, public, and manifest heresy, which all pertain to the external forum.

Again be aware that notorious, public and manifest have meaning peculiar to canon law, it is no good forcing conventional meanings onto the code, using these meanings few bishops and certainly not the Pope meet the requirements.
(02-07-2012, 05:10 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]And yet there are many other authors and theologians aside from St Robert Bellarmine, one cannot rely on one theologian, ignore all others and claim it as a doctrine.

I am not relying upon one theologian. Please read very carefully when I say that St. Robert Bellarmine's teaching was an analysis of the various theological opinions on the matter up to that point in time. He used the authority of the Church fathers to demonstrate his teaching. I have read the article you cited before and it grossly misrepresents the source document. If you actually read De Romano Pontifice instead of letting someone else tell you what it says, you see that St. Robert Bellarmine taught that it was clear the heretical prelate loses all jurisdiction and power before any juridical sentence has been pronounced. If you read the document, you see that he doesn't just state that this is his opinion; he proves it using Catholic teaching and the teachings and practice of the Church fathers.

The principle of his teaching was reiterated in Pius VI's encyclical Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio and later included in the 1917 Code of Canon Law.

Here is a relevant portion of the former:
Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, no. 6 Wrote:6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;

(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;

(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;

(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.
Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, no. 6 Wrote:6. Adiicientes quod si ullo umquam tempore apparuerit aliquem Episcopum, etiam pro Archiepiscopo, seu Patriarcha, vel Primate se gerentem, aut praedictae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalem, etiam ut praefertur, Legatum, seu etiam Romanum Pontificem ante eius promotionem, vel in Cardinalem, seu Romanum Pontificem assumptionem a fide Catholica deviasse, aut in aliquam haeresim incidisse,

(i) promotio, seu assumptio de eo etiam in concordia, et de unanimi omnium Cardinalium assensu facta, nulla, irrita,
(ii) et inanis existat, nec per susceptionem muneris, consecrationis, aut subsecutam regiminis, et administrationis possessionem, seu quasi, vel ipsius Romani Pontificis inthronizationem, aut adorationem, seu ei praestitam ab omnibus obedientiam, et cuiusvis temporis in praemissis cursum, convaluisse dici, aut convalescere possit,

(iii) nec pro legitima in aliqua sui parte habeatur,

(iv) nullamque talibus in Episcopos, seu Archiepiscopos, vel Patriarchas aut Primates promotis, seu in Cardinales, vel Romanum Pontificem assumptis, in spiritualibus, vel temporalibus administrandi facultatem tribuisse,

(v) aut tribuere censeatur, sed omnia, et singula per eos quomodolibet dicta, facta, gesta, et administrata, ac inde secuta quaecumque viribus careant, et nullam prorsus firmitatem, nec ius alicui tribuant,

(vi) sintque ipsi sic promoti, et assumpti, eo ipso absque aliqua desuper facienda declaratione, omni dignitate, loco, honore, titulo, auctoritate, officio, et potestate privati, liceatque omnibus, et singulis sic promotis, et assumptis, si a fide antea non deviassent, nec haeretici fuissent, neque schisma incurrissent, aut excitassent, vel commisissent.

The key word here is "apparuerit" as it concerns the external forum. What you are talking about concerns knowledge that could only apply to a judgment of the internal forum.
Quote:it is a theological opinion, nothing more. As for the 1917 code and other theologians, you are mistaken, as was made quite clear from the quotes from the 1917 code (which in any case would over rule mere theological opinion) warning and obstinacy is required, mere heresy or apostasy per se will not cause a loss of office or jurisdiction.

The quotes you cited don't understand the distinction that is made between excommunication for denying the faith and excommunication incurred for grave crimes committed against the Church. Canon 2264 is talking about persons who have been excommunicated for grave crimes committed, not for a denial of the Faith. For this reason, Canon 2264 concerns ecclesiastical law and can be bound and loosed accordingly. Denial of the Faith puts one automatically outside the Church per divine law, which is entirely different from what Canon 2264 is talking about.

The comments you cited then go on to say, "Thus the heretical cleric does not lose automatically his functions, but he has to be deposed by the lawful authority." That is manifestly false, as Canons 188.4 and 192.1 prove. Canon 192 explictly states that ecclesiastical offices can be vacated in two ways: (1) by the law itself or (2) by the act of a lawful superior.

As far as warnings go, who hasn't been warned? All of the adherents to the condemned "nouvelle theologie," many of whom were later elevated to the cardinalate, were suspended, yet their suspensions were removed after Pius XII died despite the fact that they never renounced their errors. Are you aware of the warning that Fr. Ratzinger was suspected of heresy by the Holy Office and Pius XII? In fact, Benedict XVI said in an interview as Cardinal that his views since the time of the council had not substantially changed.
(02-07-2012, 06:05 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-07-2012, 05:10 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]And yet there are many other authors and theologians aside from St Robert Bellarmine, one cannot rely on one theologian, ignore all others and claim it as a doctrine.

I am not relying upon one theologian. Please read very carefully when I say that St. Robert Bellarmine's teaching was an analysis of the various theological opinions on the matter up to that point in time. He used the authority of the Church fathers to demonstrate his teaching. I have read the article you cited before and it grossly misrepresents the source document. If you actually read De Romano Pontifice instead of letting someone else tell you what it says, you see that St. Robert Bellarmine taught that it was clear the heretical prelate loses all jurisdiction and power before any juridical sentence has been pronounced. If you read the document, you see that he doesn't just state that this is his opinion; he proves it using Catholic teaching and the teachings and practice of the Church fathers.

The principle of his teaching was reiterated in Pius VI's encyclical Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio and later included in the 1917 Code of Canon Law.

Here is a relevant portion of the former:
Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, no. 6 Wrote:6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;

(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;

(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;

(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.
Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, no. 6 Wrote:6. Adiicientes quod si ullo umquam tempore apparuerit aliquem Episcopum, etiam pro Archiepiscopo, seu Patriarcha, vel Primate se gerentem, aut praedictae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalem, etiam ut praefertur, Legatum, seu etiam Romanum Pontificem ante eius promotionem, vel in Cardinalem, seu Romanum Pontificem assumptionem a fide Catholica deviasse, aut in aliquam haeresim incidisse,

(i) promotio, seu assumptio de eo etiam in concordia, et de unanimi omnium Cardinalium assensu facta, nulla, irrita,
(ii) et inanis existat, nec per susceptionem muneris, consecrationis, aut subsecutam regiminis, et administrationis possessionem, seu quasi, vel ipsius Romani Pontificis inthronizationem, aut adorationem, seu ei praestitam ab omnibus obedientiam, et cuiusvis temporis in praemissis cursum, convaluisse dici, aut convalescere possit,

(iii) nec pro legitima in aliqua sui parte habeatur,

(iv) nullamque talibus in Episcopos, seu Archiepiscopos, vel Patriarchas aut Primates promotis, seu in Cardinales, vel Romanum Pontificem assumptis, in spiritualibus, vel temporalibus administrandi facultatem tribuisse,

(v) aut tribuere censeatur, sed omnia, et singula per eos quomodolibet dicta, facta, gesta, et administrata, ac inde secuta quaecumque viribus careant, et nullam prorsus firmitatem, nec ius alicui tribuant,

(vi) sintque ipsi sic promoti, et assumpti, eo ipso absque aliqua desuper facienda declaratione, omni dignitate, loco, honore, titulo, auctoritate, officio, et potestate privati, liceatque omnibus, et singulis sic promotis, et assumptis, si a fide antea non deviassent, nec haeretici fuissent, neque schisma incurrissent, aut excitassent, vel commisissent.

The key word here is "apparuerit" as it concerns the external forum. What you are talking about concerns knowledge that could only apply to a judgment of the internal forum.
Quote:it is a theological opinion, nothing more. As for the 1917 code and other theologians, you are mistaken, as was made quite clear from the quotes from the 1917 code (which in any case would over rule mere theological opinion) warning and obstinacy is required, mere heresy or apostasy per se will not cause a loss of office or jurisdiction.

The quotes you cited don't understand the distinction that is made between excommunication for denying the faith and excommunication incurred for grave crimes committed against the Church. Canon 2264 is talking about persons who have been excommunicated for grave crimes committed, not for a denial of the Faith. For this reason, Canon 2264 concerns ecclesiastical law and can be bound and loosed accordingly. Denial of the Faith puts one automatically outside the Church per divine law, which is entirely different from what Canon 2264 is talking about.

The comments you cited then go on to say, "Thus the heretical cleric does not lose automatically his functions, but he has to be deposed by the lawful authority." That is manifestly false, as Canons 188.4 and 192.1 prove. Canon 192 explictly states that ecclesiastical offices can be vacated in two ways: (1) by the law itself or (2) by the act of a lawful superior.

As far as warnings go, who hasn't been warned? All of the adherents to the condemned "nouvelle theologie," many of whom were later elevated to the cardinalate, were suspended, yet their suspensions were removed after Pius XII died despite the fact that they never renounced their errors. Are you aware of the warning that Fr. Ratzinger was suspected of heresy by the Holy Office and Pius XII? In fact, Benedict XVI said in an interview as Cardinal that his views since the time of the council had not substantially changed.

Firstly I will take the view of someone who conducted a thorough study on the matter over a layman on a forum. It is clear as the study shows that opinions differ, the church has not definitively pronounced one way or the other, nor is the theological opinion even 'certain', it is merely 'probable' or 'common' teaching.

Secondly something that occurs because of the law itself can be called 'ex lege' or 'from the law', you are arguing that this means upon heresy the law deprives them of their office ipso facto because of that heresy. This is wrong, the conditions laid down by the law must be met namely obstinancy and warning.

A layman informing a superior authority is not properly speaking a warning, it is a rebuke, only a superior can properly speaking give a warning, therefore bishops would be required to give a warning to meet the conditions for an ex lege ipso facto deprivation of office for priests and the holy see for bishops. The case you make therefore fails.
Furthermore unless one denies that the entire 1983 code is law, which means one is either a sede or believe the entire code is contrary to divine law (which is wrong) one must look at the 1983 code and see if there any provisions corresponding to the provisions of the 1917 code as the former abrogated the latter. If not the entire point is moot as it would only apply to bishops prior to the coming into force of the new code one more than 25 years ago.

I have a copy of the 1983 code at home so I'll have a look at it later and see if such provisions exist and if so what they say.

Right the relevant sections from the 1983 code are
Quote: Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.

§2. If contumacy of long duration or the gravity of scandal demands it, other penalties can be added, including dismissal from the clerical state.

Can. 1365 A person guilty of prohibited participation in sacred rites (communicatio in sacris) is to be punished with a just penalty.

Can. 1366 Parents or those who take the place of parents who hand offer their children to be baptized or educated in a non Catholic religion are to be punished with a censure or other just penalty.

Can. 1367 A person who throws away the consecrated species or takes or retains them for a sacrilegious purpose incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; moreover, a cleric can be punished with another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.

Can. 1368 A person who commits perjury while asserting or promising something before ecclesiastical authority is to be punished with a just penalty.

Can. 1369 A person who in a public show or speech, in published writing, or in other uses of the instruments of social communication utters blasphemy, gravely injures good morals, expresses insults, or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty.


Quote: CENSURES

Can. 1331 §1. An excommunicated person is forbidden:

1/ to have any ministerial participation in celebrating the sacrifice of the Eucharist or any other ceremonies of worship whatsoever;

2/ to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments;

3/ to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions whatsoever or to place acts of governance.

§2. If the excommunication has been imposed or declared, the offender:

1/ who wishes to act against the prescript of §1, n. 1 must be prevented from doing so, or the liturgical action must be stopped unless a grave cause precludes this;

2/ invalidly places acts of governance which are illicit according to the norm of §1, n. 3;

3/ is forbidden to benefit from privileges previously granted;

4/ cannot acquire validly a dignity, office, or other function in the Church;

5/ does not appropriate the benefits of a dignity, office, any function, or pension, which the offender has in the Church.


Quote: Can. 1321 §1. No one is punished unless the external violation of a law or precept, committed by the person, is gravely imputable by reason of malice or negligence.

§2. A penalty established by a law or precept binds the person who has deliberately violated the law or precept; however, a person who violated a law or precept by omitting necessary diligence is not punished unless the law or precept provides otherwise.

§3. When an external violation has occurred, imputability is presumed unless it is otherwise apparent.

Can. 1322 Those who habitually lack the use of reason are considered to be incapable of a delict, even if they violated a law or precept while seemingly sane.

Can. 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:

1/ a person who has not yet completed the sixteenth year of age;

2/ a person who without negligence was ignorant that he or she violated a law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance;

3/ a person who acted due to physical force or a chance occurrence which the person could not foresee or, if foreseen, avoid;

4/ a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;

5/ a person who acted with due moderation against an unjust aggressor for the sake of legitimate self defense or defense of another;

6/ a person who lacked the use of reason, without prejudice to the prescripts of cann. ⇒ 1324, §1, n. 2 and ⇒ 1325;

7/ a person who without negligence thought that one of the circumstances mentioned in nn. 4 or 5 was present.

Can. 1324 §1. The perpetrator of a violation is not exempt from a penalty, but the penalty established by law or precept must be tempered or a penance employed in its place if the delict was committed:

1/ by a person who had only the imperfect use of reason;

2/ by a person who lacked the use of reason because of drunkenness or another similar culpable disturbance of mind;

3/ from grave heat of passion which did not precede and hinder all deliberation of mind and consent of will and provided that the passion itself had not been stimulated or fostered voluntarily;

4/ by a minor who has completed the age of sixteen years;

5/ by a person who was coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience if the delict is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;

6/ by a person who acted without due moderation against an unjust aggressor for the sake of legitimate self defense or defense of another;

7/ against someone who gravely and unjustly provokes the person;

8/ by a person who thought in culpable error that one of the circumstances mentioned in ⇒ can. 1323, nn. 4 or 5 was present;

9/ by a person who without negligence did not know that a penalty was attached to a law or precept;

10/ by a person who acted without full imputability provided that the imputability was grave.

§2. A judge can act in the same manner if another circumstance is present which diminishes the gravity of a delict.

§3. In the circumstances mentioned in §1, the accused is not bound by a latae sententiae penalty.

Can. 1325 Crass, supine, or affected ignorance can never be considered in applying the prescripts of cann. ⇒ 1323 and ⇒ 1324; likewise drunkenness or other disturbances of mind cannot be considered if they are sought deliberately in order to commit or excuse a delict, nor can passion which is voluntarily stimulated or fostered.

Can. 1326 §1. A judge can punish the following more gravely than the law or precept has established:

1/ a person who after a condemnation or after the declaration of a penalty continues so to offend that from the circumstances the obstinate ill will of the person can prudently be inferred;

2/ a person who has been established in some dignity or who has abused a position of authority or office in order to commit the delict;

3/ an accused person who, when a penalty has been established against a delict based on negligence, foresaw the event and nonetheless omitted precautions to avoid it, which any diligent person would have employed.

§2. If the penalty established in the cases mentioned in §1 is latae sententiae, another penalty or a penance can be added.

Can. 1327 Particular law can establish other exempting, mitigating, or aggravating circumstances besides the cases in ⇒ cann. 1323-1326, either by general norm or for individual delicts. Likewise, circumstances can be established in a precept which exempt from, mitigate, or increase a penalty established by the precept.

Can. 1328 §1. A person who has done or omitted something in order to commit a delict and yet, contrary to his or her intent, did not commit the delict is not bound by the penalty established for a completed delict unless the law or precept provides otherwise.

§2. If the acts or omissions are by their nature conducive to the execution of the delict, however, their perpetrator can be subjected to a penance or penal remedy unless the perpetrator voluntarily ceased from carrying out the delict which had been initiated. If scandal or some other grave damage or danger resulted, however, the perpetrator, even if he or she voluntarily desisted, can be punished with a just penalty, although one lesser than that established for a completed delict.

Can. 1329 §1. If ferendae sententiae penalties are established for the principal perpetrator, those who conspire together to commit a delict and are not expressly named in a law or precept are subject to the same penalties or to others of the same or lesser gravity.

§2. Accomplices who are not named in a law or precept incur a latae sententiae penalty attached to a delict if without their assistance the delict would not have been committed, and the penalty is of such a nature that it can affect them; otherwise, they can be punished by ferendae sententiae penalties.

Can. 1330 A delict which consists in a declaration or in another manifestation of will, doctrine, or knowledge must not be considered completed if no one perceives the declaration or manifestation.

 
(02-06-2012, 07:22 PM)Warrenton Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for an informative discussion.  Cheers!

Thanks to you as well.  I shall leave you all to this new thread of discussion now!
(02-07-2012, 07:08 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]Firstly I will take the view of someone who conducted a thorough study on the matter over a layman on a forum.

This is akin the argument that goes, "I will take the opinion of the pope on this matter over the opinion of some layman on a forum." You wouldn't accept that argument from JayneK, so I don't accept it from you. What the Church teaches is quite clear. Citing irrelevant canons that fail to point out the distinction between major and minor excommunication is not the mark of someone who "conducted a thorough study on the matter." Objectivity requires that you examine the argument itself, not the perceived credentials of the one making it.
Quote: It is clear as the study shows that opinions differ, the church has not definitively pronounced one way or the other, nor is the theological opinion even 'certain', it is merely 'probable' or 'common' teaching.

She has actually declared it as certain. You have provided false objections that obfuscate what the Church teaches because they fail to recognize important distinctions in the law. That doesn't mean that the Church hasn't definitively pronounced one way or the other; it means that not everyone chooses to acknowledge the distinctions in the Church's law, for one reason or another. People disagree about whether the Novus Ordo's errors can be accepted or not. But you wouldn't conclude that because there are varying opinions on the matter, it is only one's opinion that they are not errors. The Church has defined what She has defined. That is not a matter of opinion, regardless of whether we're talking about the Church's law or the Novus Ordo's errors.

Quote:Secondly something that occurs because of the law itself can be called 'ex lege' or 'from the law', you are arguing that this means upon heresy the law deprives them of their office ipso facto because of that heresy. This is wrong, the conditions laid down by the law must be met namely obstinancy and warning.

Upon public, notorious, or manifest heresy, yes. You are overlooking the distinctions made in the law. It means that he has been excluded by divine law. You are trying to limit the divine law to ecclesiastical law mentioned in Canon 2314, which doesn't concern heresy that is public, notorious, or manifest. Canon 188.4, however, does:
Canon 188.4 Wrote:“There are certain causes which effect the tacit resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by the law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are… (4) if he has publicly abandoned the faith.”

Canon 188.4, 1917 Code of Canon Law.

Quote:A layman informing a superior authority is not properly speaking a warning, it is a rebuke, only a superior can properly speaking give a warning, therefore bishops would be required to give a warning to meet the conditions for an ex lege ipso facto deprivation of office for priests and the holy see for bishops. The case you make therefore fails.

Please see above concerning the distinctions between (1) material/formal heresy and (2) private/public heresy. Regardless, in the cases I mentioned, it was the pope himself issuing the warnings, not a layperson.
(02-07-2012, 05:12 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2012, 11:31 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2012, 07:06 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2012, 05:27 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]I see.

But you concede that heretics are cut off from the Church by divine and not ecclesiastical law, right?

Firstly it should be pointed out that apostasy and heresy are two different things and the canon you referred to was regarding the former not the later.

And secondly yes, heretics are cut off from the church by divine law (at least this is the common opinion), however it does follow that they lose jurisdiction what would happen in the case of secretly heretical priests and bishops if their secret heresy made them lose jurisdiction? It would be total chaos and no one could be certain of anything, the church then can supply jurisdiction eclessia supplet and higher authorities i.e the Pope or the bishop in the case of priests can supply jursidiction notwithstanding the persons heresy.

The Church makes distinctions between material and formal heresy (internal forum), and notorious, public, and manifest heresy (external forum).

Please take note of the fact that every theologian who discusses the ipso facto deposition of a heretic from an office of authority in the Church mentions that his automatic deposition is effected by notorious, public, and manifest heresy, which all pertain to the external forum.

Again be aware that notorious, public and manifest have meaning peculiar to canon law, it is no good forcing conventional meanings onto the code

Exactly:
Canon 2197.1 Wrote:“A Crime is public: (1) if it is already commonly known or the circumstances are such as to lead to the conclusion that it can and will easily become so…”

Canon 2197.1, 1917 Code of Canon Law.
(02-07-2012, 09:05 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]Furthermore unless one denies that the entire 1983 code is law

I certainly have my doubts.

Quote: one must look at the 1983 code and see if there any provisions corresponding to the provisions of the 1917 code as the former abrogated the latter. If not the entire point is moot as it would only apply to bishops prior to the coming into force of the new code one more than 25 years ago.
 
Canon 20, 1983 Code of Canon Law Wrote:A later law abrogates or derogates from an earlier law, if it expressly so states, or if it is directly contrary to that law, or if it integrally reorders the whole subject matter of the earlier law. A universal law, however, does not derogate from a particular or from a special law, unless the law expressly provides otherwise.
Canon 21, 1983 Code of Canon Law Wrote:In doubt, the revocation of a previous law is not presumed; rather, later laws are to be related to earlier ones and, as far as possible, harmonized with them.
(02-08-2012, 03:20 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-07-2012, 09:05 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]Furthermore unless one denies that the entire 1983 code is law

I certainly have my doubts.

Quote: one must look at the 1983 code and see if there any provisions corresponding to the provisions of the 1917 code as the former abrogated the latter. If not the entire point is moot as it would only apply to bishops prior to the coming into force of the new code one more than 25 years ago.
 
Canon 20, 1983 Code of Canon Law Wrote:A later law abrogates or derogates from an earlier law, if it expressly so states, or if it is directly contrary to that law, or if it integrally reorders the whole subject matter of the earlier law. A universal law, however, does not derogate from a particular or from a special law, unless the law expressly provides otherwise.
Canon 21, 1983 Code of Canon Law Wrote:In doubt, the revocation of a previous law is not presumed; rather, later laws are to be related to earlier ones and, as far as possible, harmonized with them.

How did you get to Canon 20 without reading Canon 6?  ???

Canon 6 s 1 'When this Code comes into force, the following are abrogated:

1) The code of Canon law promulugated in 1917..'
(02-08-2012, 03:04 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]This is akin the argument that goes, "I will take the opinion of the pope on this matter over the opinion of some layman on a forum." You wouldn't accept that argument from JayneK, so I don't accept it from you. What the Church teaches is quite clear. Citing irrelevant canons that fail to point out the distinction between major and minor excommunication is not the mark of someone who "conducted a thorough study on the matter." Objectivity requires that you examine the argument itself, not the perceived credentials of the one making it.

The argument requires me to accept that you understand the source text better then the theologian who did the study and those who agree with him or that it was done in bad faith, neither are plausible. It is not an ad hominem authority, but rather a fact of probability, what is more likely that you are wrong or that those who studied the source texts, did the comparative works and all those that agree with him are wrong? It is more likely that you are wrong.


(02-08-2012, 03:04 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]She has actually declared it as certain. You have provided false objections that obfuscate what the Church teaches because they fail to recognize important distinctions in the law. That doesn't mean that the Church hasn't definitively pronounced one way or the other; it means that not everyone chooses to acknowledge the distinctions in the Church's law, for one reason or another. People disagree about whether the Novus Ordo's errors can be accepted or not. But you wouldn't conclude that because there are varying opinions on the matter, it is only one's opinion that they are not errors. The Church has defined what She has defined. That is not a matter of opinion, regardless of whether we're talking about the Church's law or the Novus Ordo's errors.

You have misunderstood what I have said, the issue is a matter of theological opinion not fact, I am not saying 'Well opinions differ so it must be a matter of opinion' I am stating that:
i) The Church has not definitively pronounced one way or the other, and
ii)as a result there is a range of opinions of which yours is one

If you would like to prove your assertion that it is not in fact a matter of opinion but in fact de fide feel free to do so.

(02-08-2012, 03:04 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]Upon public, notorious, or manifest heresy, yes. You are overlooking the distinctions made in the law. It means that he has been excluded by divine law. You are trying to limit the divine law to ecclesiastical law mentioned in Canon 2314, which doesn't concern heresy that is public, notorious, or manifest. Canon 188.4, however, does:
[quote='Canon 188.4']
“There are certain causes which effect the tacit resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by the law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are… (4) if he has publicly abandoned the faith.”

Canon 188.4, 1917 Code of Canon Law.

There is a problem here. 'Publicly abandoning the faith' and 'heresy' are not equivalent, a bishop standing up and declaring 'I repudiate the faith and embrace communism/lutheranism/islam etc...' is different from a bishop manifesting theologically erroneous or heretical propositions. The sections you have cited do not apply to the potential case at hand.

(02-08-2012, 03:04 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]Please see above concerning the distinctions between (1) material/formal heresy and (2) private/public heresy. Regardless, in the cases I mentioned, it was the pope himself issuing the warnings, not a layperson.

I think we both know the difference between the two, and no the Pope did not issue a warning, a canonical warning would be 'You are breach of Canon...'
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25