Hans-Georg Lundahl a publié sur Sedevacantiste Sedevacantisme
Il y a 5 minutes.
Il y a un dixaine d'années, j'argumente pour que l'âge du mariage soit rebaissé à 12/14, item consentement pour les actes normales, tandis que les actes de sodomie devaient être recriminalisés même consentis.
J'argumente aussi pour que les féministes qui me chahutent "pédophile" tandis qu'elles étaient dans les crèches suédoises des années '70 en train de faire Kinsey sont des hypocrites. Et quand à eux qui veulent garder 18, et qui veulent me regarder comme "pédophile" pour mes propos, je les ai classés comme soit hypocrites criminels soit leur complices inconscients, puisque à partir d'un age de puberté normal l'interdit de mariage crée un détresse sexuelle exploitable par des gens plutôt "discrets" qu'honnêtes.
Ce matin, je me trouve dans un endroit où des gens ont l'impression de devoir encore me donner des leçons en affection normale entre les sexes. Vous les trouvez cohérents ou non?
J'ai été en prison, mais ce n'était pas pour des actes sexuels. C'était pour m'être défendu contre la psychiatrie. Dans un endroit où les deux parties valorisaient l'honneur dans les rélations sexuelles, mais où mes idées sur le licite furent minoritaires.
Et vous, que pensez-vous de moi? "Kinsey et Talmud" ou Catholique?
Notons, j'ai aussi argumenté pour que victimes de séduction et de viol puissent exiger d'un perpétreur célibataire le mariage. De cette façon là, elle n'auront pas d'excuse pour l'avortement - et souvent pas le genre de "besoin" qu'on allègue aujourd'hui.
samedi 14 avril 2012
mercredi 4 avril 2012
Me and Bogle Mostly ... Aquinas and Bellarmine
Me to Bogle: One point I do owe you an apology. I did do something useful: I did post the end of this discussion from which it is apparent to someone praying for me that I misunderstood St Robert's fifth and true position. Typically by conflation of two true memories into a slightly false one: I remembered that "loss of papacy at even inner heresy" was among the rejected positions (you can obviously say which of the first three), and according to Natterer's resumé, that is so because if later we detect the Pope already has lost papacy by a secret inward act, we do not know when, and so would not know from what point a new pope would have to take measures to repair the ill effects of a previous loss of papal power. Apologies. If you had simply said "no you confuse fifth position with nth position" I would have apologised earlier. However, even according to fifth position, it is not apparent that it is only cardinals who can say that such an apparent obvious loss of papacy has already happened. The Nestorius case says something else.
Hans-Georg Lundahl James Bogle, you only quoted an account of refuting tyrannicide. Which by the way St Albert the Great was one having taught legitimate. Franco did not try to kill Azaña, Mussolini far from trying to kill (even if he be excommunicated) his king merely insisted on becoming prime minister. What we do find in St THomas Aquinas was in both cases followed out:
II-II, Q42, A2
"Objection 3: Further, it is praiseworthy to deliver a multitude from a tyrannical rule. Yet this cannot easily be done without some dissension in the multitude, if one part of the multitude seeks to retain the tyrant, while the rest strive to dethrone him. Therefore there can be sedition without mortal sin."
[Note how it is answered (ad 3):]
"A tyrannical government is not just, because it is directed, not to the common good, but to the private good of the ruler, as the Philosopher states (Polit. iii, 5; Ethic. viii, 10). Consequently there is no sedition in disturbing a government of this kind, unless indeed the tyrant's rule be disturbed so inordinately, that his subjects suffer greater harm from the consequent disturbance than from the tyrant's government. Ondeed it is the tyrant rather that is guilty of sedition, since he encourages discord and sedition among his subjects, that he may lord over them more securely; for this is tyranny, being conducive to the private good of the ruler, and to the injury of the multitude."
I repeat: "Consequently there is no sedition in disturbing a government of this kind, unless indeed the tyrant's rule be disturbed so inordinately, that his subjects suffer greater harm from the consequent disturbance than from the tyrant's government."
That last qualification suffices to make Cromwell unjust even supposing one could by any stretch of imagination construe Ship Money and Not Persecuting Catholics Enough as acts of tyranny. Obviously the non-tyrannous, supposedly so, overthrowal of Charles I was more harmful to his subjects than whatever harm his own rule can be construed as having been.
Note that your own quote was about "killing" a tyrant, what I wrote about was "overthrowing" a tyranny. [See further double effect, as to what private citizens can, it is James Bogle who brings this up after Council of Constance is cited]
"It is a fact that, rightly or wrongly, "deprehenditur" does NOT appear in the 1983 Codex." - Spoof argument. I said it appeared in Denzinger, in context of Innocent III, not that it appeared in either 1917 or 1983 codes. BBL when verifying source in Denzinger, meanwhile I trust my memory even if you do not.
"If your case is that, because the Pope cannot err when teaching infallibly and cannot legislate to cause serious harm to the Church, if he does so, pertinaciously and publicly, then he deposes himself from the Papal office, then I agree with you." - There you agree in part to what Pope Innocent III said. Only, having thought of Liberius as a heretic judgeable by anyone as from signing formula of Sirmium (all did so up to end of Middle Ages), he would not have agreed those occasions were the only one by which a Pope could call himself a non-Pope by his acts. However, I am not sure your take agrees better with St Robert Bellarmine than with Cajetan. When Fr Paul Natterer defended the SSPX position in a series of talks in Zaitzkofen, he settled on Cajetan rather than Bellarmine for the most Catholic position. St Robert says, first of all a Pope would never be allowed to fall into heresy, but second, if he did so,
James Bogle Earlier, arrogantly and insultingly, you claimed that I could not, or would not, read. It seems you should charge yourself with the same accusation. Go back and read the last part of the quotation.
Let me remind you what St Thomas said:
"[48] Furthermore, it seems that to proceed against the cruelty of tyrants is an action to be undertaken, not through the private presumption of a few, but rather by public authority."
Plainly, therefore, and clean contrary to your case, merely to PROCEED against the cruelty of tyrants by private presumption is wrong. It is a matter for public authority.
Thus St Thomas clearly doe NOT confien himself to tyrannicide but any proceeding against a tyrant.
Clearly, then, to ensure consistency in his teaching, we must take it that ST II-II, Q42, A2 is referring to a tyrant by usurpation (i.e. tyrannus in titulo) and not a tyrant by oppression (tyrannus in regimine).
In any case, the Council of Constance, and papally-ratified Ecumenical Council and so the highest doctrinal authority, has, I have already shown, expressly condemned sedition, even against a tyrant.
But, clearly, I must repeat the extract since you, rather hypocritically, seem to be unwilling or unable to read what I then wrote (and yet attack me for allegedly not reading your words). The Council of Constance condemned as contrary to faith and morals the proposition that:
"Any vassal or subject can lawfully and meritoriously kill, and ought to kill, any tyrant. He may even, for this purpose, avail himself of ambushes, and wily expressions of affection or of adulation, notwithstanding any oath or pact imposed upon him by the tyrant, and without waiting for the sentence or order of any judge." (Session XV)
A tyrant by usurpation (tyrannus in titula) MAY be overthrown (and even killed) if the TRUE authority sentences or orders it but then only if the disturbance is not worse than the tyranny.
But it is contrary to faith and morals and not in accord with Apostolic teaching to seek to overthrow (or kill) a tyrant by oppression (tyrannus in regimine) although one may (indeed must) defend oneself and one's family and friends from his depredations.
If, per accidens, in defending onsefl and one's friends and family, the regime is unintentionally overthrown or the tyrant unintentionally killed, then the usual rule of double effect applies. But one may NOT do so intentionally.
Now, your case that the tyrannus in regimine may be overthrown but not killed, is a disingenuous one. Firstly, St Thomas does not confine himself to tyrannicide but to any sedition against tyrannus in regimine (see above De Regno, para 48); and, secondly, since the tyrant is an oppressor, it would be exceedingly difficult to dislodge him without force and force must needs mean that the tyrant's life is under threat. If it is wrong to kill him then it is equally wrong to take steps which will likely lead to his death. A murderer, or tyrannicide, cannot plead in his defence that he took steps knowing they might lead to death but death did not result. Whilst that may not be murder or tyrannicide it would still be a very serious offence.
The reason is not far to seek - and St Thomas makes this clear in De Regno. Who has authroity to declare the sedition? No-one. A true ruler may legislate for his subjects but a private citizen may not legislate for others. In declaring a sedition, that is what a private citizen does. If he has the authority of the true ruler to overthrow an usurper then it is no sedition but is lawful use of force.
If, however, private citizens claim the right to overthrow a tyrant who is not a usurper and they do so without the sanction of higher authority than the tyrant (e.g. the Pope or Emperor or superior sovereign) then they are themselves tyrants and seditious and should be opposed.
Obvious and logical.
You then seriously misquote St Robert Bellarmine. Far from saying that a Pope who is a heretic "in his heart" is no longer Pope and may be regarded as an anti-pope, St Robert says the opposite. Like Liguori and Cajetan, he says that the Pope must continue to be regarded as Pope unless and until he manifests his heresy, poublicaly and pertinaciously. You are seriously wrong, here. [I did not say he said a Pope could be regarded as self-deposed immediately after inner heresy, ever: the difference between what I wrongly attributed to St Robert and what he said is, on expressing heresy, is such a non-Pope regarded as losing same moment or as having secretly lost earlier his papacy, and as Bogle says, the latter is clearly rejected]
Before God, it is true, the Pope may cease to be pope but that - obviously - is not something that any private Catholic can judge. [I was wrong, since papacy is a public charge and not an inner state of grace, I had not wroked out the implications about from when papal acts should be regarded as null, obviously not before any expression of heresy] Indeed, no private Catholic may judge the Pope even when he is a public and pertinacious heretic, so as to depose him. A Catholic may distance himself from an heretical pope but he cannot judge him to be an anti-pope. However, a pope who teaches heresy publicly and pertinaciously, JUDGES HIMSELF, according to Bellarmine and so deposes himself. The Cardinals may then elect a new pope. [Not quite: he is ipso facto deposed, and can be judged by any ecclesiastic judge, including a bishop stopping him from spreading heresy in his diocese, including also cardinals so that they can elect a new pope, but these theoretically possible judgements presuppose that he already has ceased to be a superior, by manifesting heresy.]
And, NO, I do NOT trust your memory. Indeed, a person who trusts his own memory, when challenged by others as to its veracity, is not a scholar but a fraud. [I was wrong, but not a fraud, see above]
Hans-Georg Lundahl My excuses, but you missed a nuance in the words you claimed I could not read: "furthermore it would seem that ..." - as in this need not be his firm own opinion at all. You might do better to have trusted my memory, might be off to DTC tomorrow, article on Papal infallibility is pretty likely to give me right.
"he says that the Pope must continue to be regarded as Pope unless and until he manifests his heresy, poublicaly and pertinaciously." - Yes, he must still be regarded until he manifests his heresy as pope, but if he does he need no longer be regarded as pope by anyone. Nor need anyone in such a case be ashamed to say he no longer regards him as pope. Now, back to 48: even if this is a case of St Thomas' own standpoint, rather than ingress for a second rebuttal like 46 after 45, he says "public authority", not necessarily a higher such than the tyrant would have been if not a tyrant in regimine. It is also quite possible that St Thomas changed his mind.
If so II-II 42 2 ad 3 prevails.
James Bogle As to papal desposition you are still merely spouting your own opinion with no authority to back it up. What Doctors like Bellarmine, Liguori and Cajetan say is that the heresy must be public and pertinacious. It must also be obvious heresy. Even then, no private Catholic may publicly declare the Pope deposed. The College of Cardinals would need to confirm that the Pope had deposed himself and that they would be electing another. They would not be judging the Papal See but only recognising the self-judgment of its occupant for the time being. Your fatuous idea that any Catholic can declare the Pope a heretic and so withdraw allegiance is simply a recipe for permanent dissent.
As to your memory, either put up or shut up. You have been challenged. Find the source or face the fact that you are wrong.
As to tyrants, your argument is circular. You assume the thing you must prove i.e. that the tyrannus in regimine is not legitimate and that thus those below the ruler in teh state may overthrow him. Wrong. He is legitimate ruler unless an usurper and thus cannot be overthrown by his subjects. To do so is sedition, contrary to apostolic teaching and the teaching of St Thomas.
It is also, you forget, contrary to the authority of the Council of Constance.
And even more absurd would be to suggest that, in the matter of tryants, right order may be reversed and a lower "public authority" may sit in judgment upon, and overthrow, a higher which is manifestly absurd.
As to St Thomas changing his mind, that is unlikely since he was writing ST II-II around the same time as De Regno in 1267.
Thus, on the authority of De Regno, ST II-II 42 2 ad 3 must be interpreted to mean tyrannus in titula rather than tyrannus in regimine.
And my point stands.
Hans-Georg Lundahl Tarquin the Haughty - cited just after your quote ends from De regimine principum or de regimine regum - was not an usurper. So your point about that falls. St Thomas Aquinas, just after your quote ends, specifically says there is no disloyalty in the people as a whole (note: not equal to one individual) deposing him. He also makes a point about tyrants having to be born with _for a while_ or _at first_ but does not say individuals can exercise no self-defense against individual acts of tyranny while waiting and hoping an otherwise legitime ruler would mend and see that what he was supporting was tyranny. And your point about ST II-II 42 2 ad 3 falls because if you were right the ST would be opaque except to those having also access to De Regimine - which is false. About quotes from Innocent III and St Leo IX, forebear yet a while. There were passages missing from documents in the edition of Denzinger I consulted today.
"What Doctors like Bellarmine, Liguori and Cajetan say is that the heresy must be public and pertinacious. It must also be obvious heresy. Even then, no private Catholic may publicly declare the Pope deposed."
Let us distinguish: for the Pope to actually loose papacy, acc. to Bellarmin, it suffices with purely inner heresy. [Remembered that one wrong, see correction above] For that loss of papacy to be apparent, we are in another boat. [And manifest plus ipso facto imply that this ipso facto loss of papacy is also manifest to anyone knowing this rule, not just to someone judging him]
Furthermore, you talk about publically declaring the pope deposed, yes, if we talk of official declarations binding on the Church, that cannot be the task of an individual.
But when there is - you were quite right about qualities - public, pertinacious, obvious - heresy, neither is there any sin in someone finding he cannot consider himself bound to obey that or that pope.
Indeed, SSPX cites one saint in the time of either Paschalis II or John XXII or one saint in each of those times (I refer to the series of talks by Paul Natterer) who declared in a letter to such or such pope or both of them, that if he did not withdraw a certain heretical opinion they would "withdraw their obedience" - obviously (except for SSPX) an euphemism for saying later on (which they or he did not have to do, pope or popes withdrew their stances) that such and such was no pope ut self deposed.
James Bogle No, my point does not fall at all. And your illogicality and stiff-necked obstinacy in error does you no credit.
You have failed to read paras 49 and 50 in full. I reproduce them here:
[49] If to provide itself with a king belongs to the right of a given multitude, it is not unjust that the king be deposed or have his power restricted by that same multitude if, becoming a tyrant, he abuses the royal power. It must not be thought that such a multitude is acting unfaithfully in deposing the tyrant, even though it had previously subjected itself to him in perpetuity, because he himself has deserved that the covenant with his subjects should not be kept, since, in ruling the multitude, he did not act faithfully as the office of a king demands. Thus did the Romans, who had accepted Tarquin the Proud as their king, cast him out from the kingship on account of his tyranny and the tyranny of his sons; and they set up in their place a lesser power, namely, the consular power. Similarly Domitian, who had succeeded those most moderate emperors, Vespasian, his father, and Titus, his brother, was slain by the Roman senate when he exercised tyranny, and all his wicked deeds were justly, and profitably declared null and void by a decree of the senate. Thus it came about that Blessed John the Evangelist, the beloved disciple of God, who had been exiled to the island of Patmos by that very Domitian, was sent back to Ephesus by a decree of the senate.
[50] If, on the other hand, it pertains to the right of a higher authority to provide a king for a certain multitude, a remedy against the wickedness of a tyrant is to be looked for from him. Thus when Archelaus, who had already begun to reign in Judaea in the place of Herod his father, was imitating his father’s wickedness, a complaint against him having been laid before Caesar Augustus by the Jews, his power was at first diminished by depriving him of his title of king and by dividing one-half of his kingdom between his two brothers. Later, since he was not restrained from tyranny even by this means, Tiberius Caesar sent him into exile to Lugdunum, a city in Gaul.
Indeed, these passages prove my point yet more forcefully.
The material words are contained in the very first sentence thus: "If to provide itself with a king belongs to the right of a given multitude, it is not unjust that the king be deposed or have his power restricted by that same multitude if, becoming a tyrant, he abuses the royal power". The superior power in that situation is the "given multitude" since the Roman Constitution recognised the right of the Comitia to elect the king. [Not quite so at all: but since Rome was the given multitude of which Tarquin was ruler without being imposed by foreign rule] Having the right to elect the king that same "given multitude" have the right to depose him. And that is what they did with Tarquin the Proud. [Having the right to provide itself with a king, whether by election or dynasty, etc. implies such a right]
But then comes para 50 which you "conveniently" forget to mention.
It reads: "If, on the other hand, it pertains to the right of a higher authority to provide a king for a certain multitude, a remedy against the wickedness of a tyrant is to be looked for from him". [And example cited means a ruler of a vaster commonwealth providing it with not as much a sovereign as a viceroy]
This ENTIRELY proves my point.
In an hereditary system, the king is selected by birth, not election, and thus can be deposed by no-one except, perhaps the Pope or the Emperor. He cannot be overthrown by the multitude since the Constiution recognises no such power in them. [But the constitution itself is an expression of the multitude. It had, for instance the right to provide itself with a constitution.]
Indeed, even in the para 49 situation, and that of King Tarquin, it did not lie in the power of mere private citizens to overthrow the king but only in the recognised multitude who had the power to elect him, i.e. the members of the Comitia. This again, further proves my point. [His i e is wrong in part: any Roman Official immediately under the King and sufficiently representing Rome as such, but since Comitia had elected, they were the official organ most fitted to represent the multitude of Rome in such an enterprise]
You once again misquote Bellarmine. I have already pointed this out to you. You simply ignore the point and make the same error all over again.
Bellarmine did NOT EVER say that mere inner heresy was sufficient for the Pope to lose his office publicly, as you imply. [I was incorrect in saying inner heresy was sufficient to lose papacy acc. to Bellarmine, but I never even implied it was sufficient to do so publically]
Moreover, the fact that a particular pope holds an heretical opinion, privately or semi-privately, is not sufficient for self-deposition but it IS sufficient for a Catholic to refuse to accept that opinion and even to temper their obedience accordingly. It is does not necessarily imply that the Pope is self-deposed.
John XXII did not believe in a pre-general, particular judgment (which was heresy) but he was not self-deposed thereby although he did receive threats of “withdrawal of obedience” which might amount to an accusation that he was no longer pope. In fact, he withdrew the heresy on his deathbed at the behest of the cardinals. [Actually, whether it was he or Pascal II or both who received such threats, if they remained Popes it is because they withdrew wrongful opinions: as for John XXII, Marc of Ephesus - counted as a saint by the Photians, thus once by myself too - would have not considered him a heretic on that account.]
However, only a Catholic may be pope. If one is an occult heretic then God will not consider him pope. But we, Catholics, must continue to do so until he self-deposes publicly by pertinacious and public heresy. Even then, we must continue to accept his legal authority (whilst reserving our conscientious position) until the cardinals recognise his self-deposition and indicate that they will be electing another pope.
This is the true view of Bellarmine.
And my point about ST II-II 42 2 ad 3 stands.
No document stands entirely on its own without any other. Not even the Bible (despite what Protestants say).
The same is true of St Thomas. His texts must be read in the context of his other books also.
Abusrdly, you call this false, as if St Thomas has a higher claim to be self-sufficient even than texts like the Bible.
That is nonsense.
It is clear from De Regno that ST II-II 42 2 ad 3 must be taken to refer to tyrannus in titula, incorporating within the meaning of "usurper", Tarquin the Proud and others like him who, after appointment by the multitude, break the terms of their appointment by oppressing the multitude and so may be deposed by his appointers.
In so doing they may be regarded as "usurpers".
Even if you disagree with that view, you are still wrong to suppose that any tyrannus in regimine may be deposed by private citizens which is the substance of the dispute between us.
In simple terms, the higher power may not by overthrown by the lower as that is sedition. And, in the case of Tarquin, the higher power, for the purposes of deposition, was the Comitia. [If Etruria had had the power to impose kings, Etruria would have been that higher power, but Rome cannot be a higher power than Rome, just as Etruria cannot be a higher power than Etruria].
I think you should now submit gracefully.
Hans-Georg Lundah "Bellarmine did NOT EVER say that mere inner heresy was sufficient for the Pope to lose his office publicly, as you imply" - I did not say for the Pope to lose office publically, but for the pope to lose office. [And was wrong, see above]
And I did not misquote, since in that case it was Paul Natterer who did so. The passage would begin "the fifth position is the true one" or words closely similar. And Paul Natterer just as you rejected that position but unlike you he referred to Cajetan as in this particular question being more "ausgewogen" and Catholic than St Robert. [Fifth position, as I later admitted, see above, and as quoted below by Bogle is that manifest heresy is the moment papacy would in such a case be lost]
You falsely claim my position about a private citizen under a rightfully acceeding king becoming tyrant by abuse of power is that he can declare the king self-deposed by tyranny.
I said no such thing and that is not the only alternative to a hereditary king abusing power having to remain there until the pope or emperor deposes him.
My position about the private citizen is that he can "temper obedience" as you put it with a pope holding privately heretical opinions.
My position about deposition is that whether a multitude has the right to elect each king or the monarchy as such is hereditary, what St Thomas is talking about is a sovereign nation as opposed to a conquered province or an all too topheavy empire.
Louis XIV could for instance have been lawfully deposed for what he did to M. Montespan, just as much as Tarquin the Haughty for what his son did to Lucrece.
In the next case St Thomas is talking about a higher authority because Judah is no longer sovereign but under the higher authority of Rome.
But the proper procedure if a lawful highest authority in a sovereign nation has become tyrannic is, first of all to wait and hope it betters itself, all the while tempering obedience and allowing self-defense to those wrongfully attacked by it.
Second step when it is too obvious after too long that the tyranny is too systematic, is for holders of public offices under the tyrant to defend older and better laws by refusing the new ones, whether they be put quasi as laws or as directives.
Third step is for officeholders to get together about a deposition, note that I say officeholders, not private individuals.
Nevertheless, a private individual can, whether to pope or to sovereign, express the opinion that this opinion helf by one or that directive made by other constitutes proof that the officeholder in question has become either self-deposed pope or deposable tyrant.
Of course if that opinion is false and if there is a risk much evil come out of it, that private individual may be tried for treason in such a case.
"No document stands entirely on its own without any other. Not even the Bible (despite what Protestants say).
"The same is true of St Thomas. His texts must be read in the context of his other books also.
"Abusrdly, you call this false, as if St Thomas has a higher claim to be self-sufficient even than texts like the Bible."
It is not because the Holy Bible is high that it is self-explaining. A baking recipe is self-explanatory without being high. The Bible is high but in some places (let us not exaggerate the amount of them, but a place in Romans seems to have riddled Dr Luther and a few key words here and there like episcopus, presbyter, diaconus and ecclesia seem to have riddled some others or even him), not self-explanatory.
Now, the Summa, like the baking recipe, is supposed to be a form where each item (like each questio) is pretty self-explanatory.
But in another sense, St Thomas is really below Biblical authors: they are inerrant, he is not automatically.
But rather than say he changed his mind on this, I say it is ST II-II 42 2 ad 3 which is the clearer of the two instances and the one which explains the other passage.
However, there might be other things already in De regimine sustaining my position about it.
James Bogle If you say "the Pope loses office" that means publicly unless you qualify your statement. You did not qualify. My point stands. [It does]
As to Natterer, you need to be careful whom you cite if you now think he is misquoting. If you recycle misquotes you can expect to be challenged for it. It is an unusual point of view to suggest that Cajetan is "more Catholic" than a sainted Doctor of the Church who was also Prefect of the Holy Office. [I misremembered the words of Natterer]
As to the right to overthrow a tyrant, you are now becoming thoroughly confused, even as to what you earlier said yourself.
You also misquote my criticism.
Here is what I said: “you are still wrong to suppose that any tyrannus in regimine may be deposed by private citizens which is the substance of the dispute between us”.
The rest of your post thoroughly muddles the self-deposition of a pope by public pertinacious heresy and the overthrow a tyrant king.
You also misrepresent what St Thomas writes in De Regno. St Thomas is NOT merely talking about “a sovereign nation as opposed to a conquered province or an all too top heavy empire”, as you oddly put it. [Here Bogle is seriously wrong]
What he says is what he says, which is this: “If to provide itself with a king belongs to the right of a given multitude"[St Thomas does not restrict this to right by election, even dynasties have come into place through the soverignty of a nation or polity which they rule], "it is not unjust that the king be deposed or have his power restricted by that same multitude if, becoming a tyrant, he abuses the royal power”.
If it is in the power of the multitude to elect the king [St Thomas says "provide itself with" a king, without restricting this to election] then it is in their power to depose him. That is what he says. That is what he means.
You are therefore quite wrong to make the positions of Louis XIV and Tarquin comparable as to deposing power. Both can only be deposed by a higher power. In the case of Tarquin that was the multitude since they had power to elect him. That did NOT apply to Louis XIV, M. de Montespan nothwithstanding.
The Roman imperial right to remove an inferior Judean king supports my case, not yours. [Not at all, since Judah was by that imperial act no longer sovereign: and that was not a right granted legally by Jews, it was a right the emperor had conquered]
The rest of your assertions are opposed by the Council of Constance and regarded by St Thomas as contrary to apostolic authority.
Office-holders under the Crown have no right to overthrow their superior sovereign on their own authority, still less on the authority of their interpretation of “older laws” which they deem “better”. Such is merely a recipe for anarchy and defeats the whole point and purpose of government.
That is what the usurper Cromwell and his fellow regicide traitors did – argued that they were acting in the name of older and better laws. [But Magna Charta was not older law, since it was very soon rescinded by the Pope]
It is a specious argument and your use of it does not improve it.
The security of any polity is threatened by any claim that inferiors may, on their own authority, overthrow superiors.
You may, if you please, compare the Summa to a simple baking recipe but it is perfectly clear that it is not a simple text and that it is capable of interpretation. Indeed, we are already disputing one instance of it which, of itself, demolishes your point that the Summa is always self-explanatory.
You may also, if you please, consider that a response to a mere objection is a clearer statement of St Thomas’s intentions regarding deposing a ruler than a treatise expressly aimed at addressing the issue of kingship, but you are likely to be in a minority of one.
His view in paras 48 and 49 are entirely clear.
That being so, the proper interpretation of ST II-II 42 2 ad 3 must be seen in that light and interpreted accordingly.
The final nail in the coffin of your case is that the Council of Constance is against you and it is not only higher authority than St Thomas but is the voice of the Magisterium itself.
You have fought well but you must, I think, now concede.
Hans-Georg Lundahl I do not think he is misquoting at all. I think he quoted it perfectly right. [He did, but I misremembered] St Robert says that anyone who is outside the Church cannot be head of it. It may be unusual to place Cajetan above St Robert, but that is where your ideas have their support. I meant that if you should charge anyone with misquotation it would be Paul Natterer or Mikael Rosén rather than me: as for me, I have complete trust they quoted St Robert correctly. And that I recall correctly [wherein I was for this time wrong]. If anyone is confusing anything, it is rather you confusing the position of Cajetan (maybe shared with St Alphonsus, whom I have not read and who is later, further away from Trent) with what you think St Robert Bellarmine should have said. As soon as one with certainty discovers a heresy one is not obliged to regard one's superior as a pope, unless "supplet ecclesia"=supplet his superior (the pope has none) covers up his legal authority until a process.
And merely personal remarks like "arrogant" or "you have fought well" do not impress me in debates. When I asked if you could read, that was a quip, I meant it lightly - not as a personal judgement on you. Nor should you make such about me.
James Bogle But this is a ridiculous response. You say that someone did not misquote something but you have, at no point, bothered to tell us the quote so that we can judge for ourselves. Once again you claim the right to be infallible and expect us simply to take your word for it. We ahve to have "complete trust" in your "complete trust" in two individuals whom you have not even quoted. Preposterous.
Indeed, you make your position even more bizarre when you claim that you have quoted St Robert Bellarmine correctly, when, in fact, you have not even quoted him at all. More nonsense!
It is simply a nonsense.
And equally arrogant is your implication that this debate is designed to impress you. I have news for you. It is not. It is designed to show your that your arguments have no proper foundation which, in point of fact, they clearly lack. And in that respect you lose the argument and will continue to lose it until your provide authoritative sources for your somewhat eccentric views.
I, on the other hand, shall continue to provide authoritative sources as I have done all along. To show that you have both misquoted and misunderstood Bellarmine I shall quote from his De Romano Pontifice, lib.2, cap.3.
Here it is. Please take careful note.
"The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom (de auctor. papae et con., cap. 20 et 21) the manifestly heretical Pope is not ‘ipso facto’ deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. 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 St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us?
This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.”
[St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30]
St Robert here speaks of a MANIFESTLY heterodox pope by which he means one that has publicly and pertinaciously shown himself heterodox and not merely an "inner heretic", as you put it.
And if you are still in doubt about this then it is even clearer in this fianl passage:
"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."
The key phrase is this: "when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works..." i.e. publicly and not merely internally. [and all external works, not just direct affirmation of a position known to be herresy]
Thus your distinction between the positions of Cajetan and Bellarmine is a false one. There IS a difference between Cajetan and Bellarmine but it is not the one you seek to identify.
Both agree that the pope must be MANIFESTLY heterodox for any deposition to be considered, and not merely privately or in some "inner" sense.
Bellarmine's position is better because his position does not depend upon a lower hierarchy seeking to judge a higher, namely the Pontiff, but rather that the manifeslty heterodox pope judges and deposes himself.
But both disagree with you. [About immediate consequence of inner heresy, yes, but St Robert not about immediate consequence of manifest heresy]
Now if you consider this "personal judgement" so be it. This is a public forum, we are in a public debate, you must expect opposition to your inaccurate statements and criticism for obstinately sticking to them after they have been successfully challenged. If you don't like the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
As I said, the time is long overdue for you to concede. It is not too late to start now.
Hans-Georg Lundahl "You say that someone did not misquote something but you have, at no point, bothered to tell us the quote so that we can judge for ourselves."
I have not given the wording precisely because I am not infallible, only the wording of the beginning. The Question is "Whether the Pope loses office by heresy" and his position statement starts with "the fifth position is the true one".
Then I have given
Which clearly indicates that back when I had access to fuller quotes, I read St Robert as saying - and Paul Natterer referred to him as having position - that once a Pope shows clear indication of heresy, he can be called a bluff by anyone [note: I said "he can be called a bluff" not that "one can call his bluff", also "once a Pope shows clear indication of heresy" - this is miles from subsequent recurrent strawman according to which a merely secret heresy could be "bluffed out"], and anyone is immediately justified in withdrawing - completely - obedience to such a no-longer-pope-if-ever-he-was. Note: not deposed, but called a bluff. [And not: "his bluff called" as in poker] Official or juridical deposing, quite as you said, is not the matter for private individuals, whether in relation to popes or to temporal sovereigns.
Unlike tyrannic otherwise legitimate rulers, there is for popes no such thing as "tyrants should be tolerated at first", because the Church cannot for one moment be sullied with heresy, whereas states have more than once been sullied by acts of tyranny - in some cases leading to repentance of ruler (King David after taking Uriah's wife, Nebuchadnezzar).
"We ahve to have 'complete trust' in your 'complete trust' in two individuals whom you have not even quoted."
Not asking that at all. If Saint Robert's De Papatu were online in either Latin or English or French or Italian, I would look it up and link. As is now, I have given you or anyone else having access to the printed book (as I had for a few precious hours in one special library) sufficient indications to identify the passage and even to correct me if I happen to be wrong.
"Indeed, you make your position even more bizarre when you claim that you have quoted St Robert Bellarmine correctly, ..."
Did I really say "I have quoted correctly"? Did I not rather say "I have not misquoted" or sth? I said I had complete trust these two people quoted correctly. I also said I had trust in me recalling correctly, but obviously I referred my recalling to the content, not the wording word for word, except those famous "I say that the fifth position is the true one" - those which help you to identify the passage. And to see if I in fact recalled correctly or not.
"And equally arrogant is your implication that this debate is designed to impress you."
In that case you can stop using wording meant to either flatter or intimidate me, whether it be words like "arrogant" or "eccentric" or words like "you have fought valiantly". Rest of that passage at least belies the alternative that your participation in this debate is objective and without any personal intent as to me and my positions, it even implies you rather than those reading this were as it were judge of this debate.
Oh, wonderful! You provided the fourth opinion, that of Cajetan: the manifestly heretic pope is not automatically self-deposed, but can be deposed. The next words after that position are "the fifth opinion is the true one" and they say clearly that a manifestly heretic pope need not be deposed before making the conclusion he is self-deposed.
"Bellarmine's position is better because his position does not depend upon a lower hierarchy seeking to judge a higher, namely the Pontiff, but rather that the manifeslty heterodox pope judges and deposes himself."
The Pope who becomes inner heretic deposes himself before God [should rather be: makes before God a future self-deposition possible, should he manifest his heresy], and therefore whoever catches him out - "deprehendit" - in that kind of heresy, obviously as soon as he manifests it [I said nothing about catching anyone out who does not manifest heresy], can regard him as - self-deposed, already [should be: immediately]. I never said, nor ever attributed to St Robert that an inner heretic can be regarded by others as deposed before he manifests his heresy. But that he loses papacy, as soon as inwardly he is heretic [wrong], and is
And as you said it is a public debate. Meaning you are free to use words like judging me, but I am free to refer judgment between us two to any and every reader. Which is why I consider you can cut out such merely personal crap as "it is time for you to ..." and so on. Not as if saying I could not be judged, but as referring it to all readers rather than to you. But if you think I am wrong, you can of course try to prove it, by quoting in full - as you have the book - the fifth opinion, which according to St Robert is the true one. Note that your quote starts with "the fourth opinion is that of Cajetan ..." etc.
"The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope."
When he goes on to the fifth position, he argues from the fact that one loses membership in Church
James Bogle You seem - begrudgingly - to have conceded my point, although your posts are and not very comprehensible.
I have already quoted the 4th opinion (Cajetan) and the commentary of Bellarmine thereon. The issue between them is NOT (as you fondly suppose) "inner heresy" but whether a MANIFESTLY heterodox pope can be judged by the Church or whether he is ipso facto self-deposed.
You have misunderstood the nature of their debate.
It has nothing to do with "catching out" or "calling the bluff" of a pope to test his "inner heresy", as you wrongly suppose. [first item where my "heretic so-called-pope can be called a bluff" becomes "one can call the bluff of secret heresy on an apparent pope" which I never said or implied]
Neither is this a matter of "ecclesia supplet". [When it comes to a heretical bishop not yet judged by the pope and his acts in the meantime, which is what Natterer and I was talking about, it is: here he puts this in another context]
The issue is of a MANIFESTLY heterodox pope i.e. pertinacious and public.
"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is MANIFESTLY a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that MANIFEST heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: 'He would not be able to retain the episcopate, and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church'.
According to what St. Cyprian affirms in this passage, even had Novatian been the true and legitimate Pope, he would have automatically fallen from the pontificate, if he separated himself from the Church. "
It is PERFECTLY clear that Bellarmine is talking of MANIFEST heterodoxy and not some "inner heresy" caught out or "bluffed" out by a private Catholic, as you seem to suppose. [I did not even claim a pope could be seen to have lost papacy before his heresy became manifest]
It is preciesley the error of Sedevacantists that they claim the right, as private Catholics, to judge whether or not the Pope is pope. No private Catholic, being inferior in hierarchy, has that right (although they have the right to discern heterodoxy in teaching which they must accoridngly shun even if it emanates from the Supreme Pontiff). But judge teh Pope they may not.
However, a Pope may, says Bellarmine, depose himself. But, even then, it is not for private Catholics to declare him self-deposed but only those who had the original right to elect him and even they, says Bellarmine, cannot "judge" the Pope but they merely recognise the self-deposition by electing a new pope.
Furthermore, an occultly heterodox pope still remains in the Church exteriorily and still remains pope. This occult heterodoxy does not become "manifest" merely by some private Catholic "catching out" the Pope or by some sort of "bluff", as you preposterously put it. Manifest heterodoxy means, as both Bellarmine and canon law tell us, public and pertinacios heterodoxy.
"Melchior Cano says the same (lib. 4 de loc., cap. 2), teaching that heretics are neither parts nor members of the Church, and that it cannot even be conceived that anyone could be head and Pope, without being member and part (cap. ult. ad argument. 12). And he teaches in the same place, in plain words, that occult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members, and that therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope. This is also the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book I De Ecclesia.
The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics [i.e. who are not heretics] are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved."
This could hardly be clearer. Your "catching out" and "bluffing out" theory is an invention of your own, not of St Robert Bellarmine.
Hans-Georg Lundahl you have got it as muddled as you can, sorry [I had contributed to the muddle as well]
Speaking of manifest heresy, I should think CCC is pretty manifest:
Conversion of Beaubourg?
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.fr/2012/02/conversion-of-beaubourg.html
On to next part:
With Bogle, Mostly, On Bellarmine, Mostly
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.fr/2012/04/with-bogle-mostly-on-bellarmine-mostly.html
mardi 3 avril 2012
With Bogle, Mostly, On Bellarmine, Mostly
Me to Bogle: One point I do owe you an apology. I did do something useful: I did post the end of this discussion from which it is apparent to someone praying for me that I misunderstood St Robert's fifth and true position. Typically by conflation of two true memories into a slightly false one: I remembered that "loss of papacy at even inner heresy" was among the rejected positions (you can obviously say which of the first three), and according to Natterer's resumé, that is so because if later we detect the Pope already has lost papacy by a secret inward act, we do not know when, and so would not know from what point a new pope would have to take measures to repair the ill effects of a previous loss of papal power. Apologies. If you had simply said "no you confuse fifth position with nth position" I would have apologised earlier. However, even according to fifth position, it is not apparent that it is --only-- cardinals who can say that such an apparent obvious loss of papacy has already happened. The Nestorius case says something else.
This is the end, of a much longer debate. Earlier parts will be published later, when I have occasion and time.
Hans-Georg Lundahl As for quoting the fifth opinion, thank you for at last doing that.
"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is MANIFESTLY a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church" - That is doubly: inwardly and before God as soon as he falls into the sin of pertinacious heresy, outwardly as soon as he manifests his heresy. Which is were "nisi in haeresi deprehenditur" comes in.
Now, before an individual can say for sure another one is manifestly heretic, need that be pointed out about the person by authorities or not? Was Hitler a Catholic because not personally named in an act of excommunication or was Hitler a h...eretic and apostate for putting values like race and nationality above the commandments, as stated in genere about that attitude in Mit Brennender Sorge? If the second, yes, a private individual may also conclude that if CCC contradicts Stephen Tempier, St Thomas Aquinas and St Paul in the Bible, then its author or authors were not Catholic. Note that I for my part have given Benedict XVI the opportunity to clarify, if in any way he can, that what he and his predecessor stated does not at all imply there is such a thing as a nature leaning individually to sodomy or any impediment for marriage in having been diagnosed as having homosexual paraphilia (or any other, for that matter). I am very far from confident he will take the opportunity.
James Bogle:
The common thread between your theories relating to the popes and to kings is your consistent claim to put yourself in a position to judge your superiors which is a diabolic itch from the Enemy who was the first to say "I shall not serve". It is a serious error. Government, like truth, is a hierarchy and only the higher authority may gainsay the lower. For the lower to try to judge the higher is diabolic inurrection and a reversal of right order. Though ou may not realise it, it puts you in the same camp as the rebels of the Enlightenment.
I have quoted Bellarmine, you have not. You have claimed to remember what he said and so misquoted him. If you think it "as muddled as you can" to quote Bellarmine then you effectively call Bellarmine muddled and so condemn yourself out of your own mouth. I need say no more on that.
Your latest comment demonstrates a “non serviam” arrogance.
It is not for you to call upon the Supreme Pontiff to explain himself or to be judged by you. That is the diabolic itch, again.
Hitler excommunicated himself and in a manner recognised by canon law, ipso facto latae sententiae. The Church did not recognise him as a Catholic and thus no Catholic was permitted to.
There is no such position in canon law regarding an apostate pope. All that canon law says on the subject is “prima sedes a nemine judicatur”. Canon law is, of course, subject to the higher science, theology. Thus we may look to the commentaries of Bellarmine and other Doctors and we know what he says.
In short, the Church had already judged Hitler but it has not recognised any self-deposition by Bl John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI. Thus you may (indeed must) consider Hitler no Catholic but you have no right to consider the present or previous popes self-deposed.
I agree with you that parts of the CCC are theologically dubious but that is nothing like enough for a papal self-deposition (although it may be a commentary upon Cardinal Schoenborn, the editor) and by no stretch of the imagination indicates manifest heterodoxy on his part.
Even JP II’s infelicitious sayings, although bordering on the theologically dubious, were not anything like sufficient to be clear, manifest, pertinacious heterodoxy and were certainly not made ex cathedra or anything approaching it. They were ambiguous statements. Ambiguity in a pope is a bad thing, I accept, but nothing like enough to represent manifest heterodoxy.
Sedevacantism has another problem. Most of the world's bishops were appointed by the present or previous popes. If these popes were never popes then those appointments are all null and very soon thre will be no successors to the Aposltes and thus no Church. This would be to reverse Christ's promise to be always with us. It is clearly a false ideology.
Sedevacantism is clearly a false ideology.
In addition, you are wrong about your claim to be able to "bluff out" a pope from his pontifical status and you are wrong to claim that a king may be overthrown by his inferiors claiming the right to declare him illegitimate simply becuase they, on their own authority, think his rule tyrannical.
Your weltanschauung is merely a recipe for anarchy and chaos.
And we do NOT need any more of that, thank you very much.
In truth, your position is more anarchist than Catholic.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Government, like truth, is a hierarchy and only the higher authority may gainsay the lower."
Truth is above human hierarchies.
Since incarnation of God, it is not inaccessible to men.
As Mgr Williamson once put it: truth prevails over authority. As he qualified it: should there be a conflict.
Saying that deposition of Pope belongs exclusively to Church officials is precisely the fourth opinion, that of Cajetan, which St Robert rejected.
Indeed, before according to this fifth opinion which you finally did quote, thank you, a non-Pope may be judged by the Church, but only after he is self-deposed by heresy.
And the fact of self-deposition by heresy - the self-deposition is not an extra act of the pope but automatically accompanies the heresy - must be manifest before there can be any deposition related judgement by the church: otherwise there would be a catch 22.
"I am not above the Pope" (truism) "so as a private individual I have no right to consider the pope self-deposed by heresy, so I can take no initiative for the Church to judge the self-deposed Pope, so there is no initiative" - this has changed with the bishop Elijah in Ukraine! - "to judge a self-deposed pope which supposedly only the Church can, so as an individual I must assume him to be pope rather than selfdeposed until that happens which cannot happen as long as everyone reasons as I do" - which bishop Elijah did not, by the way.
Your interpretation of the true and fifth opinion makes it a parody of itself, a kind of shadow of the fourth, the one which St Robert Bellarmine rejected.
You remind me of Chesterton's words in the essay A Vile Habit - that pedants have a vile habit of telling people what they themselves would be in a position to know the truth best about themselves, i e why they are doing things.
"A diabolical itch" to judge the Pope?
Give me a break!
If I could avoid it, I would.
"I have quoted Bellarmine, you have not. You have claimed to remember what he said and so misquoted him."
I have not claimed to quote him - except in the ingress "the fifth opinion is the true one" which I misquoted merely by using "position" instead of "opinion", so I have not misquoted him, and your quote of him quite justifies my conclusion.
"Hitler excommunicated himself and in a manner recognised by canon law, ipso facto latae sententiae. The Church did not recognise him as a Catholic and thus no Catholic was permitted to."
Was there any declarative sentense about that, like 1988 about Mgr Lefèbvre and Mgr Castro-Mayer, about Mgr Fellay, Mgr what's his name, Mgr Gallareta and Mgr Williamson?
I think not. A Catholic was left to precisely his personal opinion about whether Hitler was self-excommunicated latae sententae or not. And a Pope can also self-excommunicate latae sententiae. In the case I put in that essay, I wonder whether Trent has not defined sth against Calvinism as much as Tempier under the then Pope against necessitism. Also there is one of the local medieval councils, in which one canon explicitly says "Deus neminem praedestinat ad malum". I think there were anathemata against saying the opposite.
If Stauffenberg was supposed to know Hitler was self-excommunicated and a tyrant without any aid from Catholic Authorities saying that about him officially, then how is it diabolical for me to call Benedict XVI self-excommunicated by Necessitism and Calvinism or errors close to Calvinism?
"Canon law is, of course, subject to the higher science, theology. Thus we may look to the commentaries of Bellarmine and other Doctors and we know what he says."
Precisely what I did, and you supplied me with exact quotes for it.
"In short, the Church had already judged Hitler but it has not recognised any self-deposition by Bl John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI."
When? During his youth, well before his political life? Then it does not touch the political person of Hitler.
Or would it because political cooperation with excommunicates carries excommunication with it? It did not, Benedict XV (of whose papacy I have no doubt) had said it was alright to vote even if the King was as yet (up to Lateran Treaty of 1929) excommunicate.
Or by implication in Mit Brennender Sorge?
Well if the Church can excommunicate statesmen and tyrants by implication only, so can it do with Popes no longer Catholic.
"Most of the world's bishops were appointed by the present or previous popes. If these popes were never popes then those appointments are all null and very soon thre will be no successors to the Aposltes and thus no Church. This would be to reverse Christ's promise to be always with us."
Two ways against this are open to us.
A) Bishop Elijah declares the sedisvacance is recent.
B) Nomination by the Pope is not essential for a bishop.
In absense of legitimate bishop and impossibility to reach Rome, any bishop with valid orders and orthodoxy is legitimate.
There is even a third way: recognising some other claimant to Papacy. I have today named Michael I of "Vatican in Exile" and at same time said my reservations.
"In addition, you are wrong about your claim to be able to "bluff out" a pope from his pontifical status and you are wrong to claim that a king may be overthrown by his inferiors claiming the right to declare him illegitimate simply becuase they, on their own authority, think his rule tyrannical."
You have already said that, and failed to the best of my satisfaction to back it up.
By the way, my claim was to be able to detect heresy, even in a self-deposed since heretical pope.
And Melchior Cano may have been cited among the first to third positions rejected by St Robert. How am I to know? Like Cajetan, he is not a canonised saint.
And I never claimed to be able to detect occult heresy. The detection part of this only comes into play when heresy is occult no more.
James Bogle
I never said that truth was below human hierarchies. You are attacking a straw man.
Neither did I say that deposition of a pope belongs to Church officials. I EXPRESSLY opined against such a judgment (as did Bellarmine). You attack another... straw man (again!).
I quoted the 5th opinion because you so SINGULARLY failed to do so but instead claimed to remember it (which you didn’t).
Try to get this into your head (if you can); there can be NO judgment by Church officials of a self-deposed Pope. There can be a recognition of a papal act i.e. self-deposition. That is NOT – repeat NOT – a JUDICIAL act by lower Church officials. Bellarmine makes this crystal clear. READ IT.
You have simply failed to understand what Bellarmine writes. READ IT:
"The example of the electors, who have the power to designate a certain person for the pontificate, without however having power over the Pope, given by Cajetan, is also... destitute of value. For when something is being made, the action is exercised over the matter of the future thing, and not over the composite, which does not yet exist, but when a thing is destroyed, the action is exercised over the composite, as becomes patent on consideration of the things of nature. Therefore, on creating the Pontiff, the Cardinals do not exercise their authority over the Pontiff for he does not yet exist, but over the matter, that is, over the person who by the election becomes disposed to receive the pontificate from God. But if they deposed the Pontiff, they would necessarily exercise authority over the composite, that is, over the person endowed with the pontifical power, that is, over the Pontiff”.
And this is immediately before his saying “the true opinion is the fifth”.
You deny that Bellarmine says this but there it is in black and white!
Your conclusion simply does not square with Bellarmine.
As to “A Catholic was left to precisely his personal opinion about whether Hitler was self-excommunicated latae sententiae or not”. That is false. Plenty of prelates made clear that Hitler was self-excommunicate. It simply was NOT left to the personal opinions of private Catholics.
Stauffenberg did not just take his own counsel (as you do) but sought the counsel of prelates, bishops and learned confessors.
If you think Pope Benedict XVI is a Calvinist you are entitled to your (bizarre) opinion but you are not entitled to judge him self-deposed – not if you wish to remain a Catholic. The diabolic itch is to seek to JUDGE the Pope, which is what you are in danger of doing.
You cannot JUDGE him. You are not above him. Get used to it.
You then contradict yourself by first claiming to agree with Bellarmine and then by taking the Cajetanist position that the Church can JUDGE the Pope, even to claiming that the “Church” can excommunicate a Pope.
It can’t. Get used to it.
It can, however, excommunicate a man who deposed himself from the Papacy and so is no longer Pope. That is the point Bellarmine makes which you keep missing.
As to your attempt to pray in aid Epikeia, the inability to “reach” Rome is not the problem, is it?
The problem is that Rome is, so you say, heterodox, and has been for several popes. You therefore deny the Divine assurance.
And now you ...seem to think that Bishop Elijah is Pope and that bishops can be made in defiance of papal jurisdiction. Pure schism! Whatever next?
You certainly did claim to detect occult heterodoxy but by “bluffing it out”. Then you claimed to judge a Pope deposed by reason of your own “bluffing out” of his heterodoxy. That is your error.
You then say: “my claim was to be able to detect heresy, even in a self-deposed since heretical pope”.
This is circular and therefore worthless.
The Pope is self-deposed, you say, because of heresy. But he is a heretic because, you say, you detected his heresy (by bluffing out). Thus you detected only a pope self-deposed by heresy (the heresy YOU sniffed out).
You seem unable to see that this is just a circular argument and so worthless.*
Heterodoxy in a pope remains occult until public and pertinacious and not merely when Hans Georg Lundahl says it is no longer occult.
You are in danger of the diabolic itch again.
As to the deposition of kings, you have not gainsaid my argument so, I'm afraid, you lose that argument, too.
Better luck next time!
Now I am afraid I have no more time for you. You are, in any case, starting to go round in circles which means that the discussion is over.
Hans-Georg Lundahl "Now I am afraid I have no more time for you. You are, in any case, starting to go round in circles which means that the discussion is over."
I disagree about who is doing the circles. But do not be afraid at all, discussing with you is not that great a pleasure!
"Therefore, on creating the Pontiff, the Cardinals do not exercise their authority over the Pontiff for he does not yet exist, but over the matter, that is, over the person who by the election becomes disposed to receive the pontificate fr...om God. But if they deposed the Pontiff, they would necessarily exercise authority over the composite, that is, over the person endowed with the pontifical power, that is, over the Pontiff" - precisely. No one has to judge over the composite, i e the Pope, WHILE HE IS POPE**. Everyone in the Church can say an open heretic is an open heretic, like anyone could say Hitler was it for putting race and nation over the commandments of God. And before a Pope becomes open heretic, he is for a while, even if only ten seconds, secret heretic. And when at once (as with Nestorius denying the title Mother of God to the BVM) the heresy is uttered it is gainsaid, it is no longer a Pope, no longer that composite, one judges, precisely because the person lost papacy (or became unable to gain it) immediately on being a heretic, i e even as a merely secret heretic. Melchior Cano's position would be that the Cassaciacum Thesis is valid during the interval, but ceases to be so once the Pope in question reveals the heresy by which he is not really Pope at all.
James Bogle Of course. I can see that you don't like losing.
It is perfectly clear that Bellarmine disagrees with your view that an occultly heretical pope is not pope and so may be judged by the Church because no longer pope. That YOU may judge would be laughed out of court by Bellarmine.
But there is little point in discussing the matter further, You are going in circles and clearly have no intention of shifting, whatever I may say. Enjoy your Sedevacantism.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am not judging. I am opining that this certain person John Paul II has already judged himself and that this other person Benedict XVI has already judged himself. Far from me to arrogate to myself the task of judging superiors, I am not wi...th the fourth opinion, that of Cajetan, and even if I were I am no Cardinal. But a corpse is no superior, and neither is a heretic. Do you think Michael I or Peter II is the better alternative?
James Bogle "Then I have given what is the fifth position: that the Pope loses office by even inner heresy, 'because one cannot be head of a body of which one is not even member' ".
That is NOT the 5th position. The Pope does NOT lose office by inner heresy, save before God which no man can judge.
James Edmund Hamilton Taylor the first criteria of a pope is to be catholic.if hes not catholic he loses the job by default.look at jp 2 kissing the koran.both karol cave troll and benny the rat have taken active part in non catholic religious ceremonys which makes the...m automatically apostate and excomunicant.thats apart form signing the documents of vatican two which is also an act of apostacy.did you know there is no no surname woltilla in the polish directorys in the early 1930s?his propaganda says he was involved in the polish underground in ww2 but actually he was in england all through the war and was kicked out of a seminary for heresy.there is no certificate to say he was ordained.
James Bogle
"The Pope who becomes inner heretic deposes himself before God, and therefore whoever catches him out - "deprehendit" - in that kind of heresy, obviously as soon as he manifests it, can regard him as - self-deposed, already."
This is also... NOT the 5th position. It is a position entirely of your own making.
You have again mistranslated the word "deprehendit" in this context.
Your position is that the Pope loses public office by an inner heresy in which he gets "caught out" in by Hans Georg Lundahl, after scrutinising his works and sayings***, and so, by that reason alone, he has "manifest" his heresy and so loses - publicly - the office of Peter.
That is just preposterous. No Pope would be safe in his office by dint of little Lundahls all across the face of the earth claiming to "catch him out" in some alleged or actual heresy and so claiming that he is self-deposed.
That is not what the word “manifest” in this context means at all. “Catching out” a pope is not a public and pertinacious manifestation of heresy.
And no private Catholic may simply declare him self-deposed. It would be for the College of Cardinals to acknowledge his self-deposition, declare the same to the Church and then proceed to elect a new pope.
The most a private Catholic can do is to say that they personally “think” that the pope might have deposed himself and then await a declaration of the Sacred College (or a Council).
They cannot say, as you do of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, “But a corpse is no superior, and neither is a heretic” since that would be to judge, which you say you are not, and agree cannot, do.
Until either is declared self-deposed by the Sacred College or a Council, you must treat them as popes.
And a dead pope is still authoritative in his live pronouncements and decrees and, to that extent, remains your superior.
Mr Taylor, you scandalously and mendaciously libel two far greater men than yourself and merely condemn yourself thereby. That a public heretic cannot be pope is obvious. The real issue is whehter they are heterodox and who is to judge them. It is certain that you have no right to judge them.
But I have no intention of debating with a person so worthlessly empty of moral values, respect and dignity that he refers to two great men in the vile terms that you do. Even if both popes were erroneous teachers, that would be no way to refer to either of them. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself. And if you are not, then you, sir, are certainly no Christian, and no gentleman.
But I see I am wasting my time here. Good day to you both. I leave you to yourselves.
Hans-Georg Lundahl "That is NOT the 5th position. The Pope does NOT lose office by inner heresy, save before God which no man can judge." - First before God by inner, then before men by outward.
"You have again mistranslated the word "deprehendit" in this context." - It is actually you who canot translate it correctly. Get your Liddell -Scott, will you!
"That is not what the word 'manifest' in this context means at all. 'Catching out' a pope is not a public and pertinacious manifestation of heresy." - No, but presupposes that the pope commit such one.
"And no private Catholic may simply declare him self-deposed. It would be for the College of Cardinals to acknowledge his self-deposition, declare the same to the Church and then proceed to elect a new pope." - That is about "declaring" in... juridical sense, as of a judicial sentence, not about declaring as per one's own consciousness one can no longer consider someone as pope. As St Robert made so clear at end of his discussion of Cajetan's position, it is not the declaration of cardinals or anything like that which deposes the pope, because the pope must be manifestly self-deposed before Cardinals can get going.
"Until either is declared self-deposed by the Sacred College or a Council, you must treat them as popes." - Not at all, since in that case the College of Cardinals and the Council could not even get started.
"That a public heretic cannot be pope is obvious. The real issue is whehter they are heterodox and who is to judge them. It is certain that you have no right to judge them." - If they are manifest heretics, yes. Because in that case they are manifestly not anyone's superior in the Church.
"But I see I am wasting my time here. Good day to you both. I leave you to yourselves." - Can we count on that?
See I am behind about Stauffenberg. Bishop Clement August von Galen may have agreed with you about Hitler, but precisely in doing so he agreed with me about a formal deposition from Emperor (absent) or Pope (silent on the matter of deposition) was not necessary.
You also said that in defending oneself and one's friends, one may incidentally overthrow a tyrannic régime, but one must not have that as one's intention - thank you. Whether it does or does not justify my theories, it very certainly justifies whatever actions I have done which some people want to lesson me about - LEAST it overthrow a régime which could be tyrannical.
Here is where I think judicious to withdraw, I give only footnotes. If James Bogle wants to comment on that it will be under this blogpost./HGL
*Additions on logic: Bogle attributed to me something "circular".
The Pope is self-deposed, you say, because of heresy. But he is a heretic because, you say, you detected his heresy (by bluffing out). Thus you detected only a pope self-deposed by heresy (the heresy YOU sniffed out).
Take out the you says. And other yous.
The Pope is self-deposed, because of heresy. But he is a heretic because someone detected his heresy (by bluffing out). Thus someone detected only a pope self-deposed by heresy (the heresy someone sniffed out).
Take furthermore out the "bluff out" and "sniff out" which are his strawmen for "catch out redhandedly" and "detect".
The Pope is self-deposed, because of heresy. But he is a heretic because someone detected his heresy (by catching out redhandedly). Thus someone detected only a pope self-deposed by heresy (the heresy someone detected out).
See how he is making things look circular by merely verbal repetition? It sounds a bit like a circulus vitiosus which is a fault in logic, and it is meant to sound so. The thus you detected etc. adds nothing.
The Pope is self-deposed, because of heresy. But he is a heretic because someone detected his heresy (by catching out redhandedly).
This does not amount to the pope being self-deposed because (effective cause) someone detected him as such and someone detecting him because (effective cause) he is self-deposed as a heretic. It amounts to heresy being effective cause for self-deposition, and that self-deposition followed by further heresy being efficient case for heresy and self-deposition being detectable, and someone detecting it by occasion of it having become detectable. No circle at all. Why don't they teach logic in these schools.
As for but he is a heretic because someone detected his heresy (by catching out redhandedly), that is not the efficient cause which makes him be a heretic, that is only the occasion which makes him known as heretic.
**The real distinction between Cajetan's position and St Robert's which James Bogle fails to grasp.
***Works and sayings, unless retracted or so informal as to be easily retractable, do constitute manifestations either of a Catholic's or a Catholic Pope's faith or of a heretic's heresy. Once it reaches that level there is no more any kind of pretence possible that it is question of merely interior disposition.
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
