Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes
#98
(06-06-2018, 11:59 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(06-06-2018, 11:04 PM)pabbie Wrote: If we look at the quotes from Church sources on Popes and heresy, collectively they say the heresy only need be explicit or manifest.

Correct. Except ... "manifest" is a very important term because it is a canonical term.

St. Robert makes that clear in De Romano Pontifice (bk. 2, ch. 30) :

Quote:For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed. The argument from authority is based on Saint Paul (Tit. 3.10), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate

The very term "manifest heretic" for St. Robert Bellarmine is defined by case given in St. Paul where there must be two warnings.

That is precisely what happens in the 1917 Canon Law as Fr. Henry Ayrinhac explains in his Penal Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law (p. 198):

Quote:If a person who is suspected of heresy does not, after being duly warned, remove the cause of the suspicion, supposing that it is morally possible to do so, he should be debarred from the legitimate acts. A cleric should receive a second warning, and if this too remained fruitless he should be suspended a divinis. After inflicting these punishments, six months more may be allowed, and if at the end of this time the party suspected of heresy has shown no signs of amendment, he is to be considered as a heretic and punished accordingly.

Fr. Augustine says the same in his A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law (vol. 8, bk. 5, p. 286-7) :

Quote:We now proceed to the penalties the Code inflicts on those suspected of heresy.

a) They must, first, be warned, according to canon 2307, to remove the cause of suspicion. A reasonable time should be granted for this purpose in the canonical warning.

b) If the warning proves fruitless, the suspected person must be forbidden to perform any ecclesiastical legal acts, according to can. 2256. If he is a cleric, he must be suspended a divinis after a second warning has been left unheeded.

c) If, after the lapse of six months, to be reckoned from the moment the penalty has been contracted, the person suspected of heresy has not amended, he must be regarded as a heretic, amenable to the penalties set forth in canon 2314. Whilst the penalties enumerated under (b) are ferendae sententiae, to be inflicted according to can. 2223, 3, the penalties stated under © are a iure and latae sententiae.

For automatic penalties to enter into discussion, then, we have to have at least two canonical warning. The failure to respond or amend makes it clear (manifest) that the person is unwilling to abandon their error, and thus this is clearly (manifestly) heresy.

By a warning without amendment, the bad will is established.

Because a warning can only come from those capable of demanding account (and amendment) it must be an ecclesiastical authority.

Were it every one of the faithful, then each of us could differ on whose error is heresy or whether it is actually manifest, and we would be unable to warn such a person and demand their retraction.

Once the Church makes these warnings without amendment, the penalties follow automatically. This does not happen without this process.

The only difference with a Pope (and the whole reason for the discussion) is that the Pope has no human superior, thus no one who can demand an account from him. That is the debate of the theologians on how this would play out.

Some say that the warning must come from an imperfect council or its analog who warns the Pope twice, and then declares his manifest heresy. Theologians then further debate whether this would cause automatic penalties (because the Pope is not subject to the law which inflicts them), or if he would have to be deposed first.

No theologian whatsoever ever argues that the Pope is not subject to at least this procedure at a minimum. If a Cardinal would need to be warned twice by ecclesiastical authorities before he could be determined to be a "manifest heretic" and thus stripped automatically of his office, why would a Pope be accorded less protection from the whims of others declaring his manifest heresy.

You will of course try to respond that the manifest heresy was what caused the loss of office and of the Faith in the first place, and the Church is only "declaring" this, but that is a circular argument.

The only thing that can objectively make clear (manifest) the heresy (which is defined as pertinacity in denial) is that pertinacity, which is only established by some authority insisting on a correction and the person not correcting.

(06-06-2018, 11:04 PM)pabbie Wrote: So, for example, if a Pope were to say baptism is no longer required, it would be game over, and even a Catholic child would know this was heresy. But if it were something not explicit, then the Pope would obviously be given the benefit of the doubt.

We can certainly see such a statement is at variance with the Faith. No doubt.

We cannot see that this material heresy is actually formal heresy. Formal heresy requires pertinacity. How is someone known to be pertinacious unless they are warned that they have made an error and refuse to retract it.

Who warns and judges that this exists? The Church, not the individual faithful.

(06-06-2018, 11:04 PM)pabbie Wrote: So Arius was considered a heretic for opposing the continuous teaching of the Church (the ordinary magisterium) and St. Athanasius ordered people to stay away.

And St. Athanasius was a bishop, so was declaring (based on the refusal of Arius to amend after being warned) that he was suspect of heresy and to be avoided.

An ecclesiastical authority ... determining the suspicion of manifest formal heresy ... sounds like almost the 1917 Canon Law!

(06-06-2018, 11:04 PM)pabbie Wrote: There had not yet been any solemn teaching from the Church.

But there was the intervention of an ecclesiastical authority on a local level establishing the errors of a man amounted to suspicion of heresy ...

(06-06-2018, 11:04 PM)pabbie Wrote: Then 6 years later in 325 they called the Council of Nicaea to condemn Arius (since he would not recant) and clarified the true belief on the doctrine to make sure it was clear to all the faithful.

Exactly. Just like the 1917 Canon Law.

He was suspect of heresy, called to make account, refused to recant, and thus his heresy was declared manifest.

(06-06-2018, 11:04 PM)pabbie Wrote: We use the same method today to determine heresy - we look at what has been handed down continuously Pope to Pope with the same understanding passed at the same time. The Deposit of Faith cannot change, and when serious attempts have been made, the Church has called another Council to clarify. So the Church teaches infallibly day-to-day (ordinary magisterium), and the solemn magisterium steps in when there is either a problem or something needs to be clarified.

An example, the existence of Guardian Angels was never solemnly defined, yet if a Catholic were to deny their existence it would be considered heresy because this has been taught since the beginning of the Church. If anyone were to seriously challenge it, then a Council would likely be called to clarify. But until then it is assumed infallible because the Church cannot teach error. If error arises, the Church is guaranteed to put a stop to it because it is divinely guided.

Another example - baptism was not solemnly defined until well after the first 1000 years of the Church (I forget the Council at the moment). Why wasn't it? Because it wasn't needed - it was understood by all that it was taught all along and therefore infallible. It was only when the everyday teaching was challenged in some way where the Church stepped forward and defined it.

No one here doubts such things, but this is all a non sequitur.

The question isn't about solemn definitions or not but about what make a material heresy manifest.

You throw the term around, but ultimately you are implicitly saying it is the job of the faithful to judge whether someone's heresy is "manifest", and then expecting a canonical effect from a individual private determination.

That simply doesn't work, logically or otherwise.
 
All the quotes from the Church on the subject of Popes and heresy confirm that the warning requirement does not apply to a Pope, and this is precisely because he has no superiors but God. To say he requires a warning means the warning would have to come from a subordinate. In that case, anyone could warn him. The Pope regularly consults Cardinals and Bishops on various matters - certainly they let him know when something looks erroneous, so if you want to argue he requires a warning about heresy, he certainly has plenty of warning on a regular basis! The more one thinks about a subordinate being required to warn the Pope that he has fallen to heresy, the more absurd the thought becomes.

The quotes all concur that if heresy is seen coming from a Pope, and that heresy is manifest or explicit, the man cannot possibly be a Pope.

As for pertinacity, if a Pope puts his stamp of approval on an explicit heresy for all the faithful to believe, he cannot claim ignorance because all the bishops would point it out to him. The fact that he doesn't immediately recant qualifies as pertinacious.

Case in point. Every Catholic, whether clergy or lay people, know very well about the following verses from Scripture:
  • "And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned." Mark 16:15-16
  • "If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works." 2 John 1:10-11
  • "He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth" Matthew 12:30
  • "But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven." Mat 10:33
These verses confirm that if someone doesn't believe that Jesus is God, and does not get baptized, they are condemned. Jews and Muslims do not believe in Jesus, nor are they baptized, and are therefore unequivocally condemned by the words of our Lord Himself. Subsequent popes have confirmed the same teaching over the centuries.

Now when Paul VI proposed the decree on ecumenism at Vatican II, this was DIRECTLY contrary to Scripture and the traditional teaching of the Church. Certainly he could not possibly claim ignorance of the above verses in Scripture, nor teaching from his predecessors, and certainly he had plenty of warning during the Council discussions. Yet STILL, he decided to put his official stamp of approval on it - a BLATANTLY pertinacious act.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-10-2018, 06:18 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-11-2018, 01:25 AM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-11-2018, 01:26 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-14-2018, 05:07 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-15-2018, 02:59 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-12-2018, 08:42 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-13-2018, 12:11 AM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-29-2018, 10:25 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-30-2018, 01:11 AM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-30-2018, 02:19 AM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-30-2018, 09:02 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-30-2018, 02:16 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-31-2018, 01:10 AM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-01-2018, 09:52 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-02-2018, 08:11 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-03-2018, 02:56 AM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by pabbie - 06-07-2018, 04:07 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-12-2018, 03:54 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-12-2018, 05:17 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-14-2018, 10:08 AM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-14-2018, 02:14 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-14-2018, 11:04 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-15-2018, 12:16 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-18-2018, 03:46 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-18-2018, 05:25 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-15-2018, 12:14 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-14-2018, 02:21 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-14-2018, 02:39 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-14-2018, 02:35 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-14-2018, 02:42 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-14-2018, 03:01 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-14-2018, 04:54 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)