Does St Robert Bellarmine support the SEDEVACANTIST cause?
Catholic Unscripted | 16 April 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgShX3lOI0U
You are finally taking very glibly for granted that Sedevacantists of all stripes (including Conclavists) are outside the Church.
[— uh again another 2:07 bizarre thing of from this papacy of bizarre and curious things isn't it
— so 2:12um basically reminds me of the title of that book A Series of Unfortunate Events or something like that]
2:21 You mean he is in that anti-natalist sect that came out protecting the Baudelaire children time and again?
I've not forgotten rabbit-gate.
but I don't think we can say that they go beyond the realm of opinion they're not 28:02 it's not certain how to deal with this situation because it's never we've never 28:08 had a definitive pronouncement from the the magisterium on it
Was it a delicate task to decide to call out Nestorius as a heretic?
A layman did so when he had denied the traditional doctrine of Theotokos. Now, for context, this happened before Ephesus I.
As to the argument by Ryan earlier on, the pretence that "automatic loss of office in a manifest heretic" would "make past papacies unknowable" is not just missing the nuance "manifest" heretic, and the fact (deducible from Matthew 28) that the Church could never fail to denounce a manifest heresy if it were important enough. So, if a past Pope were to have been a manifest heretic, he would have to have uttered a manifest heresy. And, unlike John XXII, not to have retracted it before dying. In order for this to be the case, we cannot have recourse to "he may have said it during a private conversation" since that's not socially manifest. He must have said so either magisterially or on an occasion that was for some other reason public (many important people present) or publicised (like a newspaper article, the interview is conducted in private, but it is meant to be published ... youtube comments are, by the way, already public, and this one is meant to be re-published on my blog, your possible answers would already be public and also meant to be re-published, if you tried to answer in a "private" mail, I would treat that as meant to be published insofar that the matter is not private).
But if the heresy was actually manifest, the Church must have reacted against it. Anything less would be against Matthew 28:16 through 20.
Now, that is one part of the rebuttal against Ryan. Another one is this. More than 2000 years after the fact, we cannot examine all the rounds around the election after Pope St. Fabian died. So, some seem to have thought that Novatian was actually legitimate, but lost office due to heresy (Novatianism being that). (By the way, the Sedeprivationist position, a see occupied by a non-functional pope, is a kind of, if not Novatianism, then Lollardism.)
Now, suppose for a moment Novatian was at some time the real bishop of Rome. Even if it didn't happen, it could have. It is already decided that, no, even then, he was auto-deposed for heresy.
By the way, auto-deposition is not the same as God deposing. A man chosing to teach heresy would by that fact do an act deposing himself, so, like his election, his loss of papacy would be by concurrence of men.
Now, here, against Ryan, a former FB friend of mine, I rely on James Larrabee translating Fourth and Fifth opinions, quoting from the fifth:
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 [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius:
“He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], 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.
So, if Ryan pretends to deal with someone as scrupulous as to doubt of an undected heresy (but still manifest, if he recalled that), why not also deal with the scruple of people, notably a certain Baptist Continuity school, who say Novatian was right and St. Cornelius wrong, and then try to trace a parallel Church from Novatians and including among others Albigensians and Waldensians. Unhistorical? Sure, but that would the position also be of someone pretending that Pope so and so had made a heresy manifest to his contemporaries, but that we cannot detect it.
I've heard someone say some have pretended St. Pius X was, already, a heretic. I don't know what the specific charge was, but one thing is certain, if it was Deep Time, as per 1909, he didn't teach it. He only taught by a representative that Deep Time could be held as interpretation of Creation days. Definitely not that it should be and also not that it even could be held as interpretation of Genesis 5 and 11. Between the first man and some Pharao, possibly the first, you have a maximum of years of 2262 + 1070 + 75 = 3407 years. Fulcran Vigouroux held that this possibly could be extended if geological evidence should require it, but didn't state this in 1909. AND, icing on the cake, in the same year 1909, Pope St. Pius X canonised St. Clement Maria Hofbauer, whose friend Veith published a Young Earth Creationist tract. This makes it perfectly clear St. Pius X didn't intend to give even "moderate Deep Time" (for Genesis 1 but not 5 or 11) monopoly. He politely stayed out of a discussion directly taking sides, but he did precisely for that reason not endorse one of the sides. Any answer that clears Honorius I more than amply clears St. Pius X. Imagine Pope Honorius I staying in communion with Sergius, but as soon as St. Sophronius died personally honouring him as a saint, well, that's a thing he didn't, but if he had, no one would have even thought of him being a Monothelite.
On the same site as Larrabee's translation, WM Review, I also found S. B. Wright noting that St. Robert certainly had said that if a Pope were suspected of heresy, a council OUGHT to be called to depose him, but makes it perfectly clear that the pronunciation of such a council wouldn't be necessary to know manifest heresy was manifest heresy, it would simply be very useful for those weaker in theology.
29:09 No, St. Robert doesn't say "after the Church has established that a Pope is a heretic, at that moment Christ severs the bond" to papacy or whatever, he says the manifest heretic himself severs it before he can be judged by the Church, as no longer Pope (if he ever was one).
I'm sorry, but you misrepresent St. Robert by relying on the expertise of Ryan Grant. As I recall from back when we were friends, he's a Latinist (better one than I) but not a canonist. Salza is a canonist, I recall, but more than willing to hold the Cajetan school while relying on the misrepresentation of the Bellarmine school by Ryan Grant.
In 1917, under Benedict XV, there was a change in the canon law explicitly stating someone retains his office until judged as a heretic. So, for lower offices than the papacy, the Cajetan school holds pragmatically, but the actual Jesuit school would arguably still be applicable in theological analysis, and the retaining of the jurisdiction up to judgement be a case of "supplet Ecclesia" which when it comes to jurisdiction means "supplet superior" or "supplet legislator" ....
Hence, through the change in 1917, the Cajetan school has become very popular among canonists. I think that explains Salza. It is also the position of quite a few in the SSPX, the position best suited to defend "recognise and resist" and therefore (if I recall the adhesion of Ryan Grant correctly) explains why Ryan Grant has his position. I recall a discussion outside St. Nicolas du Chardonnet saying "all theologians of quality reject Sedevacantism" so, SSPX is a fairly snobbish atmosphere, to which I don't hold Ryan Grant totally immune.
30:00 If inferiors can correct a Pope when momentarily deviating from the faith, even lay inferiors can do so.
The prior admonitions showing a Pope to be pertinacious, for this reason cannot be canonic admonitions.
32:28 The successor owes sth to someone who, after the "three successive sermons" (thank you for the detail) considered that if John XXII insisted, he'd have to withdraw his obedience (SSPX interprets that as "recognise and resist" but more probably it means withdraw recognition as a pope).
After that protest, John XXII apparently didn't repeat offend, but took counsel and on his deathbed revoked the opinion he had voiced.
But I would say that Abu Dhabi was scandalous, but not necessarily heretical given the explanation given.
God permissively wills people to not have the right religion if they or their surroundings don't want them to have it. God prefers they have a false religion over none at all, and God prefers the false religions up to the final 3 and 1/2 years of Earth's history to be disunited.
Those are nuances which I suspect he didn't voice at Abu Dhabi. By contrast, support for Deep Time and Evolution has been a constant in your series of Popes since 1992, since soon after Michael I was elected.
No comments:
Post a Comment