With Bogle, Mostly, On Bellarmine, Mostly

Important correction:

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.

Back to order:

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.