Tuesday, February 4, 2020

What is Necessary Ex Parte Ecclesiae, Ryan Grant?

I think he bungled his analysis of St. Robert Bellarmine at a very critical point. He is guest star at a video on the channel of Dr. Taylor Marshall.

Can Popes Become Heretics? St Robert Bellarmine Analysis
Dr Taylor Marshall | 31.I.2020

In case you wonder why my comments start at 11:56, it is not because I missed the first ten minutes, it was just generally excellent stuff I didn't need to comment on.

Is it sure Luther was already teaching "faith alone" by the time of the 95 theses?

I'd say in 1517 Luther was still closer to a Jansenist than to a Lutheran properly. It was going to change, since he founded (with Melanchthon) the Lutheran "Church", but he was not yet a full fledged Lutheran at Exsurge Domini.

So, are you sure "faith alone" was really there to be condemned?

As I recall, pushing it to the level of "simul iustus et peccator" was not in the original 95 theses, and may have been influenced by Francis of Sickingen - as I recall, Belloc stated (but it was some time since I read it) - he had acquired syphilis through a bad life, and perhaps had some personal reasons to believe "simul iustus et peccator".

Now, before St. John Fisher had a reason to analyse Luther, he had arguably already had dealings with

Franz von Sickingen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In fact, Calvin, Luther, Cranmer all of them founded "Churches" with less room for lay theologians than the Catholic Church.

"Rule in Rome" - or in exile from their See (confer Avignon papacy and Pope Michael).

"if you are missing out on any of the three things" (right faith, worship and sacraments of the church, communion and obedience with hierarchy) "you are not a Catholic."

What does that make of popes visiting a synagogue built by or for deniers of Christ (not same as visiting a temple built before Christ came) and inviting worship ranging to Christ denying and idolatrous? Or who openly deny a position shared by all Church Fathers (Young Earth Creationism, Geocentrism)?

Non-Catholics and according to St. Robert's fifth and own opinion therefore non-popes.

44:32 If a clear heresy is taught by word or example, not a disputed point which is not yet resolved, but a very clear heresy, the problems are not just one : "is the man infallible" (no, but that could be because he is not in a situation where the Pope is infallible) but it is also "is the man a Catholic" (if not, he arguably wasn't, as per Pighius, Catholic even when getting elected - which makes him as ineligible to papacy as Obama were the fact proven he was not born a US Citizen, as some have claimed).

48:16 In other words, the "papal" heresy needs to be a clear cut one.

Denial of Young Earth Creationism is via Trent and Consensus of Fathers a clear cut heresy.

Note, Humani Generis would in this case not have been that, since just saying "you may defend" x or y. But it would have been a sin against the faith, and in appeal to "formaliter / materialiter" would have been a refusal to carry out the papal task. This would mean by 1951 Pius XII is no longer formaliter pope, and can fall interiorly and externally into heresy (speech to Papal Academy of Sciences).

Obviously, if Pighius' opinion refers to only a formaliter Pope, one intending to carry out his task faithfully.

49:32 Actually, using the wrong term doesn't make you a private believer in a heresy, it only shows some lack of competence of theology.

For instance, I am no judge in my own case, but I thought there was a distinction between "sempiternal" applying to created beings for but not from eternity, and "eternal" applying to God from and to eternity.

It seems I got it very wrong as to terms, and "sempiternal" is what applies to God, and the term I was looking for is "aeviternal". Now, if I had believed created spirits were sempiternal (supposing I get the terminology right this time) that would be a private heresy, but if I believe they are aeviternal and by mistake use sempiternal for aeviternal, that is not a heretical belief.

Now, the point is, created spirits and risen bodies of the faithful (as well as of the damned) are for eternity but not from eternity, meaning, unlike God, they experience eternity not as a totum simul, but successively. THIS means, they are not simply taken into the "transcendence of God" - and this holds true of the Body of Christ too. He has His hands and feet at normal distance from each other where these dimensions touch the space in Heaven (in the Sacrament, He has the substance of His Body replacing that of bread and therefore aligned to space overand around the altar via dimensions of the bread). This means, Heaeven is a place.

And this was denied by one saying "heaven is not a place but a state" ... it is a place which goes with a state.

I think Wojtyla had time enough to consult people, so it was not just a slip of his mind.

Just before 40:02 when talking of Si Papa ...

Found Sisco and Salza:

True or False Pope?

It so happens, Honorius was not condemned for either passively allowing heresy or for heresy during his lifetime.

This means, just because Pius XII, John Paul II are dead doesn't mean they can no longer be judged (cfr Cadaver synod).

Btw, if you ever get to make a papal election, don't pick me.

I want to stay a layman.

"directly contrary to a revealed article of the faith and cannot be received in any orthodox sense"

The latter would actually also be the case with some things that indirectly (via a syllogism, if strict) contradict an article.

Otherwise, councils would not have been able to condemn Arius, since he managed to avoid (some later followers didn't so) a direct contradiction to what is stated in the Bible. Or Apostolic Creed, supposing it is well named and already existed.

What is true is, it cannot be received in any orthodox sense, as stated by Arius. That is sufficient.

Not only "Mary is the fourth person of the Trinity" but even "Mary wields of Her own power powers that belong to God alone" is contrary to the Trinity. No, while She wields powers that belong to God alone, it is because of Her prayer being pure and because of Her Son, who does wield them of His own power, is an obedient Son. She does not wield them of Her own power, as when moving Her hands or feet or speaking.

Consensus of theologians over all schools is infallible - BUT it means from beginning of Universities to loss of Catholic Universities c. 1750?

Well, in that case I would say Geocentrism is infallible. The first theologian to state Heliocentrism as true of physical fact, not just useful for simpler calculations, was Settele (who had lived through Jesuits surviving in Prussia or Russia, under enlightened monarchs, precisely). Now, this would mean, Pope Pius VII had no means to make Heliocentrism licit, but he did not make it licit to believe, the 1820 decision was only that Heliocentric books could be read.

That might imply he thought it licit to believe, but at least he did not demand Anfossi to accept it was so, he only demanded Anfossi to accept Settele's book could be printed and read.

As ex-Feeneyite, I am glad I picked Pope Michael over Alejandro IX.

Even if Alejandro IX is more credible than Wojtyla, Ratzinger and Bergoglio, notably as also Young Earth Creationist, he is a Feeneyite.

On the other hand, Pope Michael thinks of most Catholics within the Vatican II establishment as being in a state of deception and not heresy. A very clear opposition to Feeney.

Roman clergy did, during Liberius.

Withdrew from him and accepted Felix II.

They acted on the precise principle a heretical pope is ipso facto deposed. Now, he cleared himself, it was just the III Sirmian formula he had signed, ambiguous rather than clearly heretical, but he was up to that clearing himself regarded as deposed - presumably auto-deposed as per position 5 - and the see was treated as belonging to another claimant, Felix II, who had been antipope.

1:21:55 "no one knows how all this is going to work, until the Church introduces it into practise"

If no one in the Church can know it, the Church cannot know it either, which is tantamount in practise to position 3.

The Church already did put it into practise, under the false impression Liberius had fallen into heresy and the impression so far more and more verified that "John Paul II" would have been a heretic, for instance on denying Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism and on teaching by example sins against the First Commandment.

The Church so doing were a bunch of laymen, but they had invited traditionally leaning bishops (including vagante bishops that were sede) and even it seems cardinals. So, they were not a bunch of laymen by excluding clergy, but because clergy abandoned them. One of them took the name Pope Michael after being elected.

Note, if 5 voted for him and only he for someone else, the quota of electors voting for one candidate was fulfilled. There is no law I know of (and if so human ecclesiastic, not divine as per apostolic tradition) requiring more than 6 electors. For Holy Roman Emperor, seven were seen as sufficient.

That all electors were laymen is against an ecclesial law with which a condition of grave emergency could dispense.

And when it comes to Papal elections, Bellarmine teaches, in absence of normal electors, i e cardinals, the responsibility trickles down.

Calling a general council against the "pope" who is a heretic?

Well, to St. Robert Bellarmine, there was a guy in Vienna capable of doing that should the guy in Rome fail, I presume. I am not sure whether it was Trent or Vatican which defined councils are convoked by the Pope or with his admission.

Plus, the quotation does not limit the judging and deposing of a heretic pope, as per position 5, to this method, it only states a general council would be a very recommendable way to do it.

Who would in 1986 and following years, or again after 1992, have convoked a general council against Wojtyla?

Does this method being recommendable mean, Wojtyla must be continued to be accepted as "Pope John Paul II" or even "Blessed" or "Saint" such?

No, this passage does not limit the method ex parte Ecclesiae to a general council.

1:24:05 I think St. Robert just proved my point.

Some of the councils, for instance with Pope Damasus, were local. I. e. a general council is not necessary.

And unless you take Liberius' temporary replacement by Pope St. Felix II (who really became Pope after Liberius died) as unhistorical, the procedure would have been a council in Rome, or even an acclamation, as in popular (first millennium) episcopal election.

Ergo, a general council is not necessary.

1:24:24 No, he was precisely NOT saying you need an ecumenical council to depose a Pope, at least one proven a non-Pope by public heresy. There was no ecumenical council about Marcellinus. Why? Because the martyrdom of Pope St. Marcellinus occurred before the first ecumenical council:


I hope you are not so Einsteinian as to consider 304 or even earlier when he imposed penance on himself as occurring at the time of 325 or 381 by some kind of time loop.

1:24:31 Marcellinus did not appear before a general council, so St. Robert Bellarmine did not say one needed one. General = universal = ecumenic. He said enquiring into a Pope ("apparent") for heresy would be one reason to convoke a general council, not that this method is the only one.

1:25:05 As you cite, "an ecumenical council should be convoked etc." - he states this as one duty (not stating on whom it would concretely depend to fulfill that convocation), but not as the only possibility.

1:25:09 No general council was convoked in the case of Marcellinus, he died before all of them!

1:25:48 That the LOCAL council he convoked did not judge him is because his goodwill showed his fault to be not only corrigible, but already corrected by his humility.

Hence, he was not in the case of anyone who would be really losing the papacy.

Marcellinus offering incense was "at gun point" and it would seem "Francis" has no at least visible threat to partially excuse his incense to Andine version of Ceres.

1:25:58 If St. Marcellinus' incense was an apostasy, his offering to step down was a reparation of that apostasy. Arguably, he was playing for getting a superior who would reconcile him after his apostasy, so he could be Catholic again.

So, the element of pertinaciousness is totally lacking in him.

1:26:42 Yes, the Andine (and as far as I know not Amazonian) version of Ceres does bring up the question.

So, obviously, does "canonising" a man who did a similar thing in 1986 ...

By that Sunday after Easter (1:st? 2:nd?) in 2014, "Pope Francis" proved he was no Pope.

1:26:53 No, Bellarmine in what you have quoted did not say you need to have a Council especially not a General one.

Sorry, Ryan Grant, learn to read things with more exegesis and less eisegesis!

While this would seem pertinent, it would not suppress the freedom of a conscience to publically declare Wojtyla a non-Pope and then proceed to an election to get a Pope who can judge him.

One could obviously also see this as the most common way to know a Pope was heretic. But perhaps not the only one.

1:30:07 Try and see if your analysis of Sedevacantism properly so called would also hold for the emergency conclave of 1990. Note, the then layman, both sacramentally and as to dignity, David Bawden, was saying the exact same thing about Sedevacantism, at least if prolonged beyond an initial gut reaction, or a try, as you are.

Abbé de Nantes was giving "Paul VI" the chance to act as Marcellinus. He was invoking "the Pope" as supreme judge to judge himself (probably via intermediaries named by him) as heretic and schismatic.

And "Paul VI" was acting, not as Pope, capable of judging anything, but as a businessman who calls police to deal with a nuisance. Abbé de Nantes was escorted by Italian police from the Vatican.

One of David Bawden's points was that this method had already been tried and failed, therefore he proceeded, whereon he was elected.

That "nice" would have been incumbent on your pastors too. Silencing a question rather than dealing with it was not the method of the Church.

And "trying to say" well, I think I am as Thomist as you, and also I am not a Classic Sedevacantist. I am not just trying to say, I am saying that you and Ryan Grant have miserad Bellarmine.

He claims to be a historian, and doesn't see a "general" council always equals a what we would call "ecumenic" one, which means that the Marcellinus case proves a general council is not required.

At least unless I misheard one quote, and it is less likely, as I have stopped the video over and over again and sometimes gone back to hear an extra time.

Bishops that have jurisdiction - as Pope Michael precisely claims to have.

Again, Sedes properly fall in some traps we conclavists don't fall in.

Well, I did not go Protestant.

I reasoned, after shilly shallying a bit between Pope Michael and Alejandro IX and even giving "Francis" a chance, from the "canonisation" in 2014 of two uncanonisable men, that since "Francis" is not the Pope, someone else must be submitted to, and since I am not (no longer) a Feeneyite, that would be Pope Michael rather than Alejandro IX.

A bishop with material succession can be resorted to in cases of emergency, and before the emergency conclave, David Bawden took contact with many such bishops for a measure of emergency to end the emergency.

But more, he seems to have taken contact with some cardinals, meaning he did not regard all of them as defected.

This means, on his view on no moment was all and every dignitary defected. For c. 21/22 years, the one dignitary still lacked sacramental orders, but that is (also on the Dominican view) not required for him to have jurisdiction, as long as he intends to get them, which he got in 2011.

I think the invitation to the emergency conclave in 1990 was an emergency decree.

Others reasoned, the decision to make the elections leading up to Alejandro IX (who unites two lines, from Elxe and from Argentina) were such decrees.

Either way, conclavists are not open to the same criticism as sedevacantists proper.

"No one noticed"

"Jesuit from 1916 to 1952 he was later a harsh critic of the Second Vatican Council decisions and of the post-conciliar Pope Paul VI. In 1972, he was declared excommunicated by the Roman Catholic bishops' conference of Mexico."

Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, someone did.

"Suspendu ab officio le 15 septembre 1963 par l'évêque de Troyes8, il est suspendu a divinis par l'évêque de Troyes le 25 août 19668. Il est finalement frappé d'interdit le 1er juillet 1997 par Mgr Daucourt, évêque de Troyes. Malgré trois recours — le premier adressé en 1997 à Mgr Daucourt, le second la même année adressé à la congrégation pour la doctrine de la foi, le dernier adressé en 1998 au tribunal de la Signature Apostolique — les sanctions ne seront jamais levées8."

Georges de Nantes (sur la wikipédie)
a linea : Sanctions disciplinaires

Meaning de Nantes was obviously critical even before the "Council" was closed. So, at least two persons noticed.

No comments: