CDF rejects SSPX second response
(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.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Dmorgan - 02-01-2012, 09:21 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Aragon - 02-02-2012, 05:48 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Josué - 02-03-2012, 01:24 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 01:11 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 01:32 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 03:46 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 04:40 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Dmorgan - 02-03-2012, 05:12 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by FHM310 - 02-03-2012, 05:12 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Nic - 02-03-2012, 05:18 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 05:32 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 06:38 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-03-2012, 07:45 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 07:53 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 07:57 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 08:12 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 08:16 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Dmorgan - 02-03-2012, 09:48 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Justin - 02-03-2012, 09:58 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 10:13 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 10:47 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-03-2012, 11:31 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 12:16 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-04-2012, 12:34 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 12:39 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Aragon - 02-04-2012, 12:40 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Tapatio - 02-04-2012, 12:50 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-04-2012, 12:51 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-04-2012, 01:02 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Aragon - 02-04-2012, 01:14 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Dmorgan - 02-04-2012, 09:33 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 09:40 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-04-2012, 12:32 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Meg - 02-04-2012, 01:00 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Meg - 02-04-2012, 01:30 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 01:41 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 01:53 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Graham - 02-04-2012, 02:22 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Justin - 02-04-2012, 02:33 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 03:23 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 04:56 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 05:40 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 06:46 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 07:37 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 08:54 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-05-2012, 10:08 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-05-2012, 03:14 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Silouan - 02-05-2012, 05:41 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-05-2012, 05:57 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-05-2012, 06:19 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Silouan - 02-05-2012, 11:11 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-06-2012, 12:13 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Tapatio - 02-06-2012, 02:53 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-06-2012, 03:07 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Tapatio - 02-06-2012, 09:47 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Doce Me - 02-06-2012, 11:55 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Tapatio - 02-07-2012, 12:49 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by TrentCath - 02-07-2012, 07:08 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-07-2012, 11:20 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Tapatio - 02-09-2012, 03:41 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Tapatio - 02-12-2012, 02:58 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-12-2012, 07:39 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Tapatio - 02-12-2012, 11:06 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-13-2012, 08:30 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Tapatio - 02-16-2012, 03:24 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Tapatio - 02-16-2012, 04:18 AM



Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)