Posted on 05/10/2016 6:37:51 AM PDT by BlatherNaut
If, through God's permissive will, a pope acts as a "scourge", we ought to accept and endure the chastisement and offer up the sufferings he inflicts.
"And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me". (Matthew 10:38)
If a particular pope is eventually determined by the Church to have been an anti-pope, we will have incurred no sin by engaging in the Catholic practices of offering prayers and penances for him during his incumbency, nor by "resisting him to his face" when he proposes deviations from the Deposit of Faith. On the other hand, if we mistakenly turn our back on one who in the Mind of God is a legitimate pope because our private judgment misleads us, we risk offending God.
He's not. Just like Blather you are completely misunderstanding his "licit to resist" quote in order to attempt to rationalize *your* novel response to the Crisis: to resist a true pope's liturgy, laws and teachings on faith and morals. St Bellarmine in no way teaches that we can do this because St Bellarmine would not teach that a true pope can give us evil liturgies, laws and doctrines which need to be resisted.
From the traditionalmass.org link above:
Traditionalists do indeed “resist”the false doctrines (e.g., on ecumenism) and evil laws (e.g. the New Mass) promulgated by the post-Conciliar popes.But in the famous quote Bellarmine addresses another case entirely: he has been asked about a pope who unjustly attacks someone, disturbs the public order, or “tries to kill souls by his bad example.” (animas malo suo exemplo nitatur occidere.) In his reply he says “it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders.” (…licet, inquam, ei resistere, non faciendo quod jubet.)This language describes a pope who gives bad example or evil commands, rather than — as would be the case with Paul VI or his successors — a pope who teaches doctrinal error or imposes evil laws. This is clear from chapter 27 of Cardinal Cajetan’s De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii, which Bellarmine then immediately cites to support his position.
First, in his title for chapter 27 Cajetan says he is going to discuss a type of papal offense “other than heresy.” (ex alio crimine quam haeresis.) Heresy, he says, completely alters a pope’s status as a Christian (mutavit christianitatis statum). It is the “greater crime” (majus crimen). The others are “lesser crimes” (criminibus minoribus) that are “not equal to it” (cetera non sunt paria, [ed. Rome: Angelicum 1936] 409). Neither Bellarmine nor Cajetan, therefore, are referring to “resisting” a pope’s doctrinal errors while continuing still to consider him a true pope.
Second, throughout De Comparatione, Cajetan provides specific examples of the papal misdeeds that do justify this resistance on the part of subjects: “promoting the wicked, oppressing the good, behaving as a tyrant, encouraging vices, blasphemies, avarices, etc.” (356), “if he oppresses the Church, if he slays souls [by bad example]” (357), “dissipating [the Church’s] goods” (359), “if he manifestly acts against the common good of charity towards the Church Militant” (360), tyranny, oppression, unjust aggression (411), “publicly destroying the Church,” selling ecclesiastical benefices, and bartering offices (412).
All these involve evil commands (praecepta) — but evil commands are not the same as evil laws (leges). A command is particular and transitory; law is general and is stable. (For an explanation, see R. Naz, “Précepte,” Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique,[Paris: Letouzey 1935-65] 7:116–17.) Bellarmine and Cajetan’s argument justifies only resisting a pope’s evil commands (to sell the pastorate of a parish to the highest bidder, say). It does not support the notion that a pope, while still retaining authority from Jesus Christ, can (for example) impose a sacrilegious, Protestantized Mass on the whole Church, whose members can then “resist” him, while continuing to recognize him as a true pope.
Pray for us St Bellarmine, today on your feast day.
You’re still stuck on the Cephas verse aren’t you? Cephas did not propose deviations to the Faith. Therefore you can not use it to support your “recognize and resist” position.
Yes, I am "stuck on" Sacred Scripture. St. Bellarmine is not the author. His speculations and opinions are interesting, but not to be substituted for God's Word on the subject of errant popes.
Cephas "was to be blamed" (Galatians 2:11). In that regard, he and Bergoglio are alike. We may therefore "resist" Bergoglio's anti-Christ scribblings and blather with a clear conscience. God is permitting him to run amok, and it is His prerogative to resolve the situation as He wills. Those who presume to be personally entitled to effectively excommunicate disobedient popes (and even declare that no legitimate pope has existed since 1958) are clearly trespassing on God's domain.
Where else in Sacred Scripture (besides Gal 2:11) does God directly treat of an errant pope?
An “errant” pope? A “disobedient” pope? You mean a true pope who errs in matters other than faith and morals? Or a true pope who sins? I’m not talking about a merely “errant” or “disobedient” pope. I’m talking about a “pope” that teaches heresy in matters of faith and morals. God doesn’t directly treat that sort of “pope” in Scripture because true popes don’t teach The Church heresy and there was no such pope in Scripture.
So again, Cephas, does not teach the Church heresy. Therefore, it does NOT support your position. Unless of course you just think Bergoglio is merely “disobedient”. You know, a “bad” pope.
pius, you still seem to be laboring under the conception that we can decide if a Pope is heretical or not. Saint Bellermine by no means teaches that you can privately decide that the Pope is heretic---as I've said, we are given the right resist a Pope who is manifestly erring. We cannot deem him a heretic and invalidate his Papacy. I would suspect that Saint Bellermine probably drew this teaching from Galatians 2:11. As I believe Blather may have said already, resistance is the extent of our Scripturally-sanctioned response to a legitimately elected Pope we may privately regard as loathsome or even heretical, if he has not been formally defined as such by Mother Church. We have a Scriptural verse telling us explicitly that Saint Paul resisted Cephas himself. And despite SGNA's proposal of Galations 1:6-10 to fill the role, we still don't have an Scriptural verse supporting the invalidation of a Pontiff based on one's private Judgment---it is not for you or me to declare that the Pope isn't preaching the Gospel. That was part of the error that Luther inflicted upon Christendom.
"The Roman Pontiff has no superior but God. Who, therefore, could cast him out or trample him under foot – since of the pope it is said ‘gather thy flock into thy fold’? Truly, he should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God.
"Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory [Minus dico] because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged.
"In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men'."
Canon 188: "Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clerus ... (4) a fide catholica publice defecerit."
Canon 188: "There are certain causes which effect the tacit resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are: (4) if he has publicly fallen away from the Catholic faith."
If you do want to play that game, however, as some are doing with Bergoglio's conclave and electioneering, massive electioneering and full scale plotting was documented in 1958 before the conclave results, and the winner Roncalli was predicted in advance and published in the German press, by the late Dr. Elizabeth Gerstner. The scheming took place in the chambers of the newly formed (1953) Council of the Laity. Gerstner worked in that office and was witness to the plotting. Under the Rules of conclave of Pope Pius X and by the relevant rules of Pope Pius XII, that alone would invalidate the results. (Forget any Siri fables as they are meaningless and without any merit.)
You cannot be of good will to make up your own heretical praxis in dealing with this situation. The Church clearly states what must be done in the event of heresy which the Church denotes as the Gates of Hell:
Pope Paul IV, CUM EX APOSTOLATUS OFFICIO":
3. (iii) , and as such must be avoided and must be deprived of the sympathy of all natural kindness.
6...."or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;"
7.(ii) the laity;
shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs
To the greater confusion, moreover, of those thus promoted or elevated, if these shall have wished to prolong their government and authority, they shall be permitted to request the assistance of the secular arm against these same individuals thus promoted or elevated; nor shall those who withdraw on this account, in the aforementioned circumstances, from fidelity and obedience to those thus promoted and elevated, be subject, as are those who tear the tunic of the Lord, to the retribution of any censures or penalties."
Somehow I don't think Zero would be of much help in this matter.
And this practice would apply to one who was not a heretic before being elected but became one afterwards.
St Robert Bellarmine, "De Romano Pontifice", ("On the Roman Pontiff"), liber II, caput 30:
"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."
He is a Saint and even more so one of the 30 (genuine) declared Doctors of the Church and you have the unmitigated temerity to belittle him and call him a hypocrite!?
There are dozens more, from after the time the theological issue was settled, that I can cite that state the same.
Game, set, match.
Either that or go full apostate and start cheerleading with the rest about how wonderful Bergoglio is.
While you're at it, go vote for Hillary as well.
But don't parrot ridiculous tripe from the sellout cults or from the likes of pseudo-trad talking heads such as John Vennari who insist Bergoglio is the pope but would forbid him teaching the catechism to his children.
He is either the pope and you must obey him in all matters pertaining to the Faith (except direct orders against the Natural law such as theft, murder, etc.) or he is a heretic and not a Catholic nor a pope in the least.
You can't have it any other way.
CUM EX APOSTOLATUS OFFICIO - APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL IV, 15TH FEBUARY 1559 - (ROMAN BULLARIUM VOL. IV. SEC. I, PP. 354-357)
By virtue of the Apostolic office which, despite our unworthiness, has been entrusted to Us by God, We are responsible for the general care of the flock of the Lord. Because of this, in order that the flock may be faithfully guarded and beneficially directed, We are bound to be diligently watchful after the manner of a vigilant Shepherd and to ensure most carefully that certain people who consider the study of the truth beneath them should be driven out of the sheepfold of Christ and no longer continue to disseminate error from positions of authority. We refer in particular to those who in this age, impelled by their sinfulness and supported by their cunning, are attacking with unusual learning and malice the discipline of the orthodox Faith, and who, moreover, by perverting the import of Holy Scripture, are striving to rend the unity of the Catholic Church and the seamless tunic of the Lord.
1.In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfil our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling.
You and Blather (and the rest of the Recognize and Resist crowd) have co-opted this Scripture to support the novelty that Catholics can disobey a true pope based on their *private judgment* of where they believe their true pope is in error.
I just wish for once when someone points fingers at sedevacantists for using their *private judgment* they would at least admit that they do it as well (hence the hypocrisy). Of course I happen to think the R&R position is worse in that these Catholics think they can disobey their pope.
Sedevacantists make the logical conclusion that a true pope can not give the Church evil laws, liturgy and teachings in faith and morals and recognize that one who does do this can not possibly be a true pope of the Holy Catholic Church...all based on the teachings of a DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH. Sedevacantists would never disobey a true pope. Sedevacantists strongly respect the office of the papacy and merely recognize that a heretical pope can be no pope and, as such, that he has already lost his office. They await the Church's final official declaration and God's restoration. In the mean time, they live their lives to the best of their ability in accordance with the Catholic Faith as it was always taught but they will not pay lip service to a false pope.
I'm tired of the anti-sede sentiment out there as if sedes were some form of Catholic leprosy. Like when people say "Francis has driven my mother to sedevacantism" which is what really got me going in this thread.
More R&R nonsense.
Tabloid rumor and calumny unsupported by any official Church pronouncement.
You cannot be of good will to make up your own heretical praxis in dealing with this situation.
Indubitably. But it seems that Sedevacantists have no scruples on that issue.
The Church clearly states what must be done in the event of heresy which the Church denotes as the Gates of Hell:
Why bother seeing what the Church denotes in this situation? Use your private judgement on the matter. That's the Sedevancantist rationale for unilaterally declaring the Pope heretical. Why should what Church denotes on any topic be of relevance to them?
He is a Saint and even more so one of the 30 (genuine) declared Doctors of the Church and you have the unmitigated temerity to belittle him and call him a hypocrite!?
Rhetorical irony evidently isn't something well-understood among empty-chair Protestants. And I like how, again, the Sedevacantists have the haughtiness to dictate which doctors of the church are genuine. 'Tis good to know that the Almighty has established the Sedevacantists as alternative authorities on that matter if we grow weary of the Popes.
Either that or go full apostate and start cheerleading with the rest about how wonderful Bergoglio is.
Why indeed would I? It is within our permitted liberties to disprove of and oppose him to his face, even if we are not granted the authority to will his authority out out of existence. That is what the Sedevacantists fail to grasp.
While you're at it, go vote for Hillary as well.
It is against the teachings of the true Church to vote for a pro-abortion politician; I do not consider it my private liberty to use my private judgment to defy the Church's sovereign authority.
He is either the pope and you must obey him in all matters pertaining to the Faith (except direct orders against the Natural law such as theft, murder, etc.) or he is a heretic and not a Catholic nor a pope in the least.
No, he is an errant Pope, though not defined as a heretic by the Church; hence it is our right and duty as faithful Catholics to oppose his errors. You cannot, I say again, simply will him out of existence.
Have you, pius? Have you read the passages of Saint Bellarmine that you bandy about? He was certainly what you would deride as an "R & R" Catholic. It is licit to resist; it is not licit to depose. You can be a martyr in spirit for the Church, suffering the unique dismay of a faithful Catholic under the rule of an unworthy Pontiff; you are not at liberty to be a theological Bolshevik and deny the Papacy's functional existence, whether you choose to prop up a Pope Michael or venerate an empty chair.
I just wish for once when someone points fingers at sedevacantists for using their *private judgment* they would at least admit that they do it as well (hence the hypocrisy). Of course I happen to think the R&R position is worse in that these Catholics think they can disobey their pope.
Pius, I do hope you realize that you are calling a Doctor of the Church a hypocrite. Bottom line: "R & R" Catholics respect the extent of the liberty Mother Church has granted us to oppose an errant Pontiff; Sedevacantists assume unauthorized and novel liberties to which they have no true right. If that makes us hypocrites in your estimation, then I can only conclude that to be called a hypocrite by a Sedevacantist is likely a mark of virtue.
Sedevacantists would never disobey a true pope...They await the Church's final official declaration and God's restoration.
To which they will grant recognition in their own arbitrary good time.
Dhouay Rheims (Challoner):
The fault that is here noted in the conduct of St. Peter, was only a certain imprudence, in withdrawing himself from the table of the Gentiles, for fear of giving offence to the Jewish converts; but this, in such circumstances, when his so doing might be of ill consequence to the Gentiles, who might be induced thereby to think themselves obliged to conform to the Jewish way of living, to the prejudice of their Christian liberty. Neither was St. Paul's reprehending him any argument against his supremacy; for in such cases an inferior may, and sometimes ought, with respect, to admonish his superior.
and Catholic Encyclopedia:
Here St. Peter was found fault with probably by the Greek converts. He did not withdraw on account of bodily fear, says St. John Chrystostom; but as his special mission was at this time to the Jews, he was afraid of shocking them who were still weak in the Faith. His usual manner of acting, to which he was led by his vision many years previously, shows that his exceptional withdrawal was not due to any error of doctrine.
And Haydock:
Now as to authors that make Cephas the same with St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, we have what may be called the unexceptionable and unanimous consent of the ancient fathers and doctors of the Catholic Church, as of Tertullian, who calls this management of St. Peter, a fault of conversation, not of preaching or doctrine....After a long dispute betwixt these two doctors, St. Jerome seems to have retracted his opinion, and the opinion of St. Augustine is commonly followed, that St. Peter was guilty of a venial fault of imprudence. In the mean time, no Catholic denies but that the head of the Church may be guilty even of great sins.
Imprudence and venial sin at best, not heresy. Francis' documents don't just contain errors of "imprudence". Francis has not merely "sinned" (as all popes and Catholics do).
I would appreciate it if you would stop saying that I call St Bellarmine a hypocrite. You keep using his "licit to resist" quote in the same way you use Galatians 2:11 to support your position: in error. If you'd like, I can prove that too.
I’m not sure I am following...do you mean that you have only a certain number of posts you are allowed to make on the forum? I don’t remember having any sort of initial limit when I joined.
But neither has Francis been formally denounced as a heretic. Until he is, we are only at liberty to regard him as being gravely in error---tainted by leftist thought and desperate to pander to the modernists.
I would appreciate it if you would stop saying that I call St Bellarmine a hypocrite. You keep using his "licit to resist" quote in the same way you use Galatians 2:11 to support your position: in error. If you'd like, I can prove that too.
I'm merely sharing what I perceive, pius. And if you feel you can prove your point, then please do. But I don't suppose you, me, or anyone else can change sacred Scripture or the writings of Church Doctors.
But the scripture you keep using to support this has nothing to do with denouncing a true pope being "gravely in error" in his preaching or in his doctrine. There is no Scriptural support for denouncing such a pope.
Do you understand this very critical distinction?
Again, pius, do you? We are permitted to admonish a Pope in error. There is no stated distinction within the verse. Is this what you meant when you offered to prove your point? Because to be completely honest, pius, I don't see any new argument here.
Much worse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.