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
Was the Roman clergy correct in stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity? They presumed him to be a heretic by his external actions and because of that very presumption, he was correctly deemed outside the Church. Thus, he could be "deposed" because he had already deposed himself by his own actions.

St. Robert Bellarmine says they were indeed correct and that the pontificate "could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic."

Church history confirms it. Felix was pope.
(02-09-2012, 08:46 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Church history confirms it. Felix was pope.

Indeed. If you check the Church's own account of the history of the popes, Felix is even listed there as the pope punctuating the two reigns of Liberius. The Church has acknowledged that Felix rightly became pope by the election of the Roman clergy after Liberius' heresy (which, by the way, was merely a defense of heresy rather than an explicit profession saying, "I am a heretic, renounce my Catholicity, and I am publicly defecting from the Faith in exactly five minutes from this moment!"). If that were required for the principle of unity to be maintained, the Catholic Church could not claim to be divine and would never have made it to the 21st century.
(02-09-2012, 03:41 AM)Tapatio Wrote: [ -> ]This thread got derailed big time.
This evolved to be an apologia pro sede vacans.

We are talking about the Church's teachings on the unity of the Church. We are not applying them specifically to BXVI, which is what is known as "sedevacantism." The Church's teaching about heretics--even if they happen to be prelates--is clear. But that is not sedevacantism. Sedevacantism is the specific application of those teachings to the pope himself. That these teachings apply to BXVI himself is not a discussion we are having here; nor we can we have it anywhere else but the "Cornfield."

Quote:Is a sedevacantist to be considered a non-Catholic?

It is certainly of Faith that Our Lord gave the powers of the keys to the successor of Peter, and that the pope is the Church’s visible head. However, it is not of Faith that Our Lord would not leave His Church for a time without a visible head. There have been times in past history of up to three years without a pope, and times during which nobody really knew who the true pope was. Consequently the belief that this particular person is not the pope is not necessarily a denial of the Catholic Faith.

The traditional Code of Canon Law (canon 1325, §2) defines a schismatic as one who refuses to submit to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff. However, given the present confusion of the Church and the fact that we are obliged by our Faith to refuse so many of the liberal, ecumenical statements of Pope John Paul II, it is not necessarily obvious that a sedevacantist actually refuses to submit to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, and that he is consequently a schismatic.

Nevertheless, it is preposterous to say, as the sedevacantists do, that there has not been any pope for more than 40 years, for this would destroy the visibility of the Church, and the very possibility of a canonical election of a future pope.

Just submission to the pope is a principle of unity in the Church, along with the Faith, the sacraments, and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This is all contained in the definition of the Church contained in the catechism:

    The Church is the congregation of all baptized persons united in the same true faith, the same sacrifice, and the same sacraments, under the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff and the bishops in communion with him.

However, he is not the only factor of unity. This is the misconception shared by both modernists and sedevacantists alike. They say that nothing matters but the pope and become modernist like him, or they say that nothing matters but the pope, and he is destroying the Church, so therefore there is no pope. The real problem of the present crisis in the Church is that the pope is no longer acting as principle of unity, as he ought, for he is no longer adequately promoting the unity of Faith, sacraments and the Mass that has always characterized the Catholic Church.

It is consequently true that there can be some theological discussion as to whether sedevacantists are formally schismatic or not. The answer to this depends on the degree of sedevacantism. There are radical sedevacantists that call us heretics since we are in communion with a heretic (Wotyla), so they say. These are certainly schismatic, for they clearly reject communion with true Catholics, who are in no way modernist. By making their sedevacantism a quasi-article of faith they certainly fall into the second category of persons that canon 1325, §2 declares to be schismatic: "He is a schismatic who rejects communion with members of the Church subject to him (i.e., the Sovereign Pontiff)."  It is consequently by their refusal to be a part of the Church, and effectively making the "church" as they see it consist only in sedevacantists that they are certainly schismatic.

There are other sedevacantists, who do not hold their opinion as a question of Faith, but just as a private opinion, and who do not condemn other traditional Catholics who do not share their opinion. On account of the confusion of the present crisis and the fact that they do not refuse communion with Catholics who have the true Faith, it is not unreasonable to hold that such persons are not formally schismatic.

However, the real danger with the sedevacantists, over and above the question of their being formally schismatic, is that they fail to have a Catholic attitude. Their rash and excessive condemnatory attitude, not only towards the pope and the modernists, but also towards Catholics simply trying to live their Catholic life, and other traditional Catholics, leads them to fall into rigorism, formalism and legalism, and to condemning everybody else. They easily fall into pharisaical pride. They are a real plague to the traditional movement here in the United States. Such people have no sense of obedience or submission, and often commit rash judgment. They do not feel at home in the Society’s chapels where the Church’s Faith, sacraments, doctrines and Mass are preached together with the interior life of charity and self-sacrifice as the means for restoring all things in Christ. 

Do sedevacantists really love the Church? Do they not judge Pope Benedict XVI personally, as they say?

It is certainly true that many sedevacantists (i.e., those who believe that the pope has lost the office of the papacy through his heretical actions) think that they love the Church. But they do not love her as she really is, with all her faults and defects. If a man would not love his wife as she really is, but rather a mental picture of how he would like her to be, would he really love her?

Some sedevacantists might state that they do not judge the pope personally. However, to state that his heretical actions remove him from office is to make a public, official judgment. Only a higher authority in the Church can make such a judgment. However, there is no higher authority than the pope, which is why the axiom is to be held Papa a nemine judicatur —the pope is judged by no one. By stating that he has lost the papacy, sedevacantists personally judge the pope, as if they had authority over him. This is not Catholic, regardless of the gravity of his materially heretical actions. It is the Protestant principle of personal judgment which is thereby erected into a principle of Faith, thus destroying the visibility and hierarchy of the Church.



OREMUS PRO PONTIFICE NOSTRO BENEDICTO XVI


There I said it.

Since we are not discussing the application of the Church's teachings specifically to the person of the pope, we are not discussing sedevacantism. Please do not bait sedevacantists by posting arguments that elicit discussion about it. That is against the forum rules and is unfair to sedevacantists, who can't respond unless this thread is in the Cornfield, which it is not at this time.
(02-09-2012, 08:04 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-09-2012, 04:22 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-09-2012, 10:07 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]TrentCath,

You have already conceded that heretics are cut off from the Church by divine and not ecclesiastical law. The new code of Canon law can't "abrogate" divine law. A man who publicly professes heresy cannot hold authority and jurisdiction in the body to which he manifestly no longer belongs to.

You are the one arguing that professing the Catholic faith does not really matter in order to have authority and jurisdiction in the Church which is absurd!

Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice Wrote:Further, after explaining that Felix was for a time an antipope, he continues (no. 15): "Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.

That is an oversimplification of my view but again I have not seen any evidence whatsoever that justifies disobeying bishops and further committing the sin of presumption by believing them to be heretics as they have professed what we believe is a heresy.

It was a layman who first called out the heresy of Nestorius. Profession is not subjective. 
Quote: I have justified my view with copious quotes and references to canon law,

Lists of quotes don't have much weight if they are being misapplied. What you provided made several errors that I pointed out. Whoever wrote the article seems to have considered a few canons only in coming to a conclusion in  much the same way that Protestants use only a few Scripture passages to justify their actions. The study of canon law is comprehensive and requires that all of it--including the various distinctions made therein--be considered simultaneously in order to know what it means. Canon 2314 doesn't specifically treat of public heresy, but 188.4 does (and 192.1 applies it to the vacation of an ecclesiastical office by the law itself).

You tried to redefine what abandoning the Faith means, but you did not support your view. Abandoning the Faith can be effected many ways, two of which include heresy and apostasy per divine law. You cannot abrogate that with the 1983 Code or by saying that one has to announce that he's abandoning the Faith. The Church is not simply a man-made structure. The unity of the Catholic Church is supernaturally bound by divine law, which is effected even before we know it, as even the Code of Canon Law points out. Islam, on the contrary, is a religion that is legally bound by a mere unity of government. It takes time for the law to catch up to someone, but with Catholicism it is instant. As I pointed out, if this were not so, the unity of the Church would be merely theoretical, but not actual. Unity of Faith is maintained by a unity of profession, which is one of the two constituents that make up the visibility of the Church: formal and material visibility. If heretical prelates can publicly profess heresy without immediate consequence, then there is no actual unity of profession, which destroys what is known as formal visibility, and there is no real unity of Faith, either. These are divine attributes of the Church that can't be dispensed with by mere disciplinary law, regardless of what the 1983 Code says. It could only (theoretically) have the power to abrogate ecclesiastical laws. It could not have the power to abrogate divine law, which is found in the 1917 Code of Canon law.


Quote: the opposing view on the other hand has been characterised by a misunderstanding of canonical terms and arguments ab adsurdam as well as an over reliance on a particular view of particular theologians rather than the oppossing views of other theologians of great weight.

I advise you to re-read the discussion. The quotes you brought to the table use canons don't pertain to public and manifest heresy, treat of minor excommunication as opposed to major excommunication, and overlook the divine law that is present among many of the canons of the 1917 Code.

When you are ready to provide some evidence to back up you views get back to me, until then all I have is the word of one laymen on a forum versus several canons and theologians.
(02-09-2012, 08:46 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Was the Roman clergy correct in stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity? They presumed him to be a heretic by his external actions and because of that very presumption, he was correctly deemed outside the Church. Thus, he could be "deposed" because he had already deposed himself by his own actions.

St. Robert Bellarmine says they were indeed correct and that the pontificate "could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic."

Church history confirms it. Felix was pope.

A) read the original article I posted which goes over this, and
B) it's not, as usual, as clear cut as you make out http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm
I have just received a copy of 'Bouscaren and Ellis' and it would appear that i was mistaken in equivalencing Canon 188 and the other canons, however there is still a problem with the idea that they automatically lose jursidiction and thus we can disobey them:
i)the question of supplied jurisdiction, and
ii)what exactly 'publicly fallen away from the catholic faith' means, the problem is that it is very problematic to presume someone has publicly fallen away from the Catholic faith because we believe them to have stated heresy, when they still declare themselves Catholic, hold to many of the teachings, frequent the sacraments and appear to exercise their office. In such a case one would need to be absolutely certain that our interpretation of what they said as heresy was the right one, that there were no absolutely no excusatory circumstances and that the person really meant it. It is extremely difficult to do so.  Further we would then have to be certain that jurisdiction was not supplied if we intended to disobey them. Lastly it becomes somewhat problematic to say someone has publicly abandoned the catholic faith if out of all of the people that saw this event we are the only ones who believe they have done so. One shouldn't take this too far as it is true many catholics have lost the faith but still one must consider it.

And there can be no question of attempting to apply this to the Pope as the article itself makes quite clear. I am merely speaking of bishops or priests.
(02-10-2012, 05:14 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-09-2012, 08:46 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Was the Roman clergy correct in stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity? They presumed him to be a heretic by his external actions and because of that very presumption, he was correctly deemed outside the Church. Thus, he could be "deposed" because he had already deposed himself by his own actions.

St. Robert Bellarmine says they were indeed correct and that the pontificate "could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic."

Church history confirms it. Felix was pope.

A) read the original article I posted which goes over this, and
B) it's not, as usual, as clear cut as you make out http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm

I've already read it.

You haven't answered me. Was Felix a real pope? Was Liberius lawfully deposed?
(02-10-2012, 01:55 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-10-2012, 05:14 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-09-2012, 08:46 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Was the Roman clergy correct in stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity? They presumed him to be a heretic by his external actions and because of that very presumption, he was correctly deemed outside the Church. Thus, he could be "deposed" because he had already deposed himself by his own actions.

St. Robert Bellarmine says they were indeed correct and that the pontificate "could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic."

Church history confirms it. Felix was pope.

A) read the original article I posted which goes over this, and
B) it's not, as usual, as clear cut as you make out http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm

I've already read it.

You haven't answered me. Was Felix a real pope? Was Liberius lawfully deposed?

[/quote] On the departure of Liberius from Rome, all the clergy had sworn that they would receive no other bishop. But soon many of them accepted as pope the Archdeacon Felix, whose consecration by the Arian Bishop Acacius of Cæsarea had been arranged by Epictetus at the emperor's order. The people of Rome ignored the antipope. Constantius paid his first visit to Rome on 1 April, 357, and was able to see for himself the failure of his nominee. He was aware that there was no canonical justification for the exile of Liberius and the intrusion of Felix; in other cases he had always acted in accordance with the decision of a council. He was also greatly moved by the grandeur of the Eternal City--so Ammianus assures us. He was impressed by the prayers for the return of the pope boldly addressed to him by the noblest of the Roman ladies, whose husbands had insufficient courage for the venture. There is no reason to suppose that Felix was recognized by any bishops outside Rome, unless by the court party and a few extreme Arians, and the uncompromising attitude of Liberius through at least the greater part of his banishment must have done more harm to the cause the emperor had at heart than his constancy had done when left at Rome in peace. It is not surprising to find that Liberius returned to Rome before the end of 357, and that it was noised abroad that he must have signed the condemnation of Athanasius and perhaps some Arian Creed. His restoration is placed by some critics in 358, but this is impossible, for St. Athanasius tells us that he endured the rigours of exile for two years, and the "Gesta inter Liberium et Felicem episcopos", which forms the preface to the "Liber Precum" of Faustinus and Marcellinus, tells us that he returned "in the third year". The cause of his return is variously related. Theodoret says that Constantius was moved by the Roman matrons to restore him, but when his letter to Rome, saying that Liberius and Felix were to be bishops side by side, was read in the circus, the Romans jeered at it, and filled the air with cries of "One God, one Christ, one bishop". The Arian historian Philostorgius also speaks of the Romans having eagerly demanded the return of their pope, and so does Rufinus. St. Sulpicius Severus, on the other hand, gives the cause as seditions at Rome, and Sozomen agrees. Socrates is more precise, and declares that the Romans rose against Felix and drove him out, and that the emperor was obliged to acquiesce. The reading in St. Jerome's "Chronicle" is doubtful. He says that a year after the Roman clergy had perjured themselves they were driven out together with Felix, until (or because) Liberius had re-entered the city in triumph. If we read "until", we shall understand that after Liberius's return the forsworn clergy returned to their allegiance. If we read "because", with the oldest manuscript, it will seem rather that the expulsion of Felix was subsequent to and consequent on the return of Liberius. St. Prosper seems to have understood Jerome in the latter sense. The preface to the "Liber Precum" mentions two expulsions of Felix, but does not say that either of them was previous to the return of Liberius. [/quote]

Theres your answer
Felix was lawfully pope, then.

There's your answer.
(02-10-2012, 02:32 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Felix was lawfully pope, then.

There's your answer.

Yeah, thats not what the article says, you sure you read it?

Besides which I didnt argue one couldnt declare a pope heretic, I merely pointed out the conditions laid down by the law and faith which make it almost impossible to do so and which no pope has ever definitely met, though there are arguments about 2 but opinion is divided as regards them. What I was arguing against was the ludicrous suggestion that we should simply ignore all bishops that we believe have lost the faith, an attitude which aside from being imprudent is un-catholic.
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