CDF rejects SSPX second response
(02-12-2012, 02:35 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(02-12-2012, 01:52 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Thought these key sections illuminated rather well my point
Quote: 3.2o. Incompatibility between heresy and ecclesiastical jurisdiction: Both Holy Scripture and Tradition teach clearly that there is a deep incompatibility in radice (in the root) between the condition of a heretic and the possession of an ecclesiastical jurisdiction, because a heretic ceases to be a member of the Church. However, such incompatibility is not absolute, that is why theologians are using the term in radice (in the root).  In the same manner as a plant can still stay green for a while after it had been rooted up, likewise, jurisdiction could be maintained, in a precarious manner though, even after the Churchman had fallen into heresy (cf. Suarez). Theologians are basing their argumentation mostly on Canon Law, Can. 2314: "All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic and schismatic incur the excommunication ipso facto.  Unless they respect warnings, they are deprived of benefice, dignity, pension office … and if clerics, with the warning being repeated, they are deposed." Then, Can. 2264 declares unlawful, but not automatically invalid, the acts of jurisdiction coming from someone who has been excommunicated: "An act of jurisdiction carried out by an excommunicated person, whether in the internal or the external forum, is illicit; and if a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been pronounced, it is also invalid, without prejudice to c. 2261, §3; otherwise it is valid." Thus the heretical cleric does not lose automatically his functions, but he has to be deposed by the lawful authority.  From this, we can conclude that heresy, even external, does not automatically eliminate jurisdiction. Against it, it may be argued from Canon 188 # 4: "Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric: 4. Publicly defects from the Catholic faith." Sedevacantists are using this canon as a weighty proof of their thesis, however, such canon cannot be considered as a final proof that a heretical pope had lost his office. One has to remember that the pope is always above the dispositions of the positive law, as the one of Can. 188. Such argument would be final only if it was being proved that the canonical disposition of Can. 188 belongs to the divine-positive law of the Church. One would have also to prove that this divine-positive law applies properly to the specific case of the pope. But, it is precisely on that matter that the greatest theologians have been in disagreement for centuries.

3.3. Jurisdiction of the heretic: Being cut off at the root, the jurisdiction of the heretic does not disappear automatically, but it will remains as much and as long as it is maintained by a superior authority. This will happen if the pope maintains the jurisdiction of a heretical bishop who has not yet been punished according to Canons 2264 and 2314.  But, what happens if the pope himself falls into heresy? Who has the power to maintain him in his jurisdiction? It is not the Church, or even a group of bishops, for the pope is always superior to the Church, and he is not bound by ecclesiastical law. According to LNM 7, Christ Himself could maintain, at least for a while, the jurisdiction of a heretical pope. What would be the reason that would justify maintaining the jurisdiction of a heretical pope? Theologians have considered different answers to that question. The most serious answer to that key question is to say that Christ would maintain the jurisdiction of a heretical pope as long as his heresy is not notorious enough and widely publicized. Meanwhile, all the acts of jurisdiction of such a heretical pope would be valid and, if he were to proclaim a dogmatic definition, such definition would likewise be valid. In such case, the Holy Ghost would speak through the mouth of that pope, like He spoke through the mouth of Balaam's ass (Numbers XXII, 28-30). Such conclusion of Xavier de Silveira is perfectly consistent with the thought of St. Robert Bellarmine. The famous Dominican Father Garrigou-Lagrange8 reaches the same conclusion. Basing his reasoning on Billuart, he explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that a heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. For, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head. The reason is that, whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul, a moral head, as is the Roman Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity. In short, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, but he is head of the visible Church by the jurisdiction and authority which he received, and these can coexist with his own heresy.

3.4. Public and Notorious heresy: It is to be understood according to the Canon Law principles. A Public crime, according to the law of the Church is not necessarily something which is done in the open and witnessed by Television cameras, as most people think. Let me quote the famous canonist Bouscaren: "Classification as to Publicity. A crime is: 1. Public, 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; [...] 'Commonly known' (divulgatum) means known to the greater part of the inhabitants of a place or the members of a community; but this is not to be taken mathematically, but in prudent moral estimation. A crime may remain occult though known to a number of persons who are likely to keep it quiet, whereas it may be public though known to only a few who are sure to divulge it."9 As the pope is the Universal pastor of the entire Church, how can we apply such principles to the case of his heresy?  According to the canonists, for an act of heresy by a pope to be Public, the knowledge of it would either have to be already widely spread amongst the faithful of the universal Church, being known to most of them, or at least such as that it will be in practice impossible to stop it from becoming so known and it certainly will. Such heresy would have to be widely publicized, as well as Notorious - in order to be Public in canonical terms. For a pope's heresy to be Notorious, not only would the heretical act have to be widely known of, as we have seen, but it would also have to be an act whose criminality had been legally recognized.  In other words, for the criminality of a pope's heresy to be legally recognized, such that his heresy would be canonically Notorious, not only would a knowledge of his heresy have to have spread widely through the Church, as we have seen above, but it would also have to have been widely recognized as a morally imputable crime.

3.5. Notoriety of law and notoriety of fact:

1. Notoriety of law: A crime becomes Notorious with a notoriety in law only when a judicial sentence has been rendered by a competent judge - but the pope has no superiors and no one has juridical competence to judge him: "The first See can be judged by no one."10 - Hence any heretical act of John-Paul II cannot be Notorious with a notoriety of law.

2. Notoriety of fact: Can we say the same thing about the notoriety in fact of the pope's heresy? For it to be so, it would have to be widely recognized as both heretical and morally imputable - as Pertinacious (persistent and determined to the point of stubbornness). That is to say that it must be not only materially notorious, the heretical act being widely known, but also formally notorious, the act being widely recognized as a morally imputable crime of formal heresy. We may see this from the comments of the canonists: "An offense is Notorious by notoriety of fact, if it is publicly known and committed under such circumstances that it cannot be concealed by any subterfuge, nor excused by any excuse admitted in law, i.e., both the fact of the offense and the imputability or criminal liability must be publicly known."11 So a papal act of heresy would be notorious in fact only if both the act were "publicly known" - and the "imputability or criminal liability" were "publicly known". There is no competent judge who could rule of a pope that guilt was involved, and so the guilt could be Notorious only by being widely publicly known - it would have to be widely known that the act was morally imputable. And it would be necessary that it could not be excused by an appeal to an "accident", some sort of "self-defense", or some other legally admissible excuse; it would also be necessary that "no subterfuge" could possibly conceal it.   


A)Jurisdiction does not necessarily automatically cease due to the person being a heretic, and
B) The requirements for such a public renouncement of the Catholic faith are very stringent

The above sections are taken from here: http://catholicintl.com/index.php/scienc...evacantism

Fr. Cekada Wrote:Like many who have written against sedevacantism, one fundamental flaw runs through Mr. Sparks’ article: he seems utterly unaware of the distinction between human ecclesiastical (canon) law and divine law, and how this distinction applies to the case of a heretical pope.

Heresy is both a crime (delictum) against canon law and a sin (peccatum) against divine law.  The material Mr. Sparks quotes deals with heresy as a delictum and with the ecclesiastical censure (excommunication) that the heretic incurs.

This is mostly irrelevant to the case of a heretical pope.  Because he is the supreme legislator and therefore not subject to canon law, a pope cannot commit a true delictum of heresy or incur an excommunication.  He is subject only to the divine law.

It is by violating the divine law through the sin (peccatum) of heresy that a heretical pope loses his authority - “having become an unbeliever [factus infidelis],” as Cardinal Billot says, “he would by his own will be cast outside the body of the Church.” (De Ecclesia, 5th ed. [1927] 632.)

The canonist Coronata explains:

“If indeed such a situation would happen, he [the Roman Pontiff] would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one.” (Institutiones Iuris Canonici [1950] 1:316. My emphasis.)

So, all the canonical requirements governing the delictum of heresy need not be fulfilled for a heretical pope to lose his authority - his public sin against divine law (infidelity) suffices.

The above quote comes from here: http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/...catname=10

The SSPX errs in appealing to the procedures of ecclesiastical law to show how the Roman Pontiff would theoretically lose jurisdiction even as they admit that he cannot be judged according to that very same law.  It's an exercise in futility.

One of the most unconvincing arguments I have read in a long time that addresses none of the points raised but merely goes on to cite canonists, not the trappings of a good argument.

And yes I agree that we have a sede issue to whoever said that, I did not intend for this to devolve into that but wad merely pointing out the problems with ignoring bishops.
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 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 TrentCath - 02-12-2012, 04:36 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: 1 Guest(s)