It is currently Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:20 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 131 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
For those who are interested in the question of where the Church is, I present a piece of text taken almost at random from Fr. Clerissac's astonishing book on the Church (scanned, here: viewtopic.php?p=15306#p15306 )

Quote:
The joy and vital energy which theology dispenses are incomparable, because this science is simply the baptismal illumination become conscious and progressive. But the measure of this progress is our union with the Church. The ordinary Christian who begins to live by the prayers of the Church acquires a sure instinct of orthodoxy and feels an increase in his need for penetrating the doctrines of the faith. The religious, who bears witness by his state to the Church’s note of sanctity, lives in an atmosphere of doctrine and can leave it no more. The Bishop, supremely the man of the Church, is also supremely and in full right the Theologian.


This is utterly incompatible with the Novus Ordo milieu. "The ordinary Christian who begins to live by the prayers of the Church acquires a sure instinct of orthodoxy..." Is there anything less able to be matched with the experience of the average Christian within the Novus Ordo?

The Novus bishop, supremely the Theologian? !!!

Realities like these, which one meets on every page of books of ecclesiology and meditations on the true Church, render all discussion about the technicalities of the law moot. We sedevacantists have the better, by a country mile, of those arguments anyway, but they really have become redundant. If Francis is pope, then the Church has defected, not merely (I speak as one less wise) in her infallible teaching office, but in every aspect of her divinely informed daily life.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Apr 28, 2014 12:18 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 4:53 pm
Posts: 100
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
John,

Father Berry treats the primary and secondary objects of infallibility under its own heading separate from the infallibility of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, the infallibility of the Bishops, and the infallibility of the Pope. Recusant comment reminded me of this, and I was wondering if canonizations as a object of secondary infallibility could fall under any of the above three. My understanding is that it does, meaning a pope can by his own power proclaim someone a saint.


Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:29 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
James Schroepfer wrote:
John,

Father Berry treats the primary and secondary objects of infallibility under its own heading separate from the infallibility of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, the infallibility of the Bishops, and the infallibility of the Pope. Recusant comment reminded me of this, and I was wondering if canonizations as a object of secondary infallibility could fall under any of the above three. My understanding is that it does, meaning a pope can by his own power proclaim someone a saint.


Yes, I agree, it's absolutely the personal prerogative of the pope. The scope of infallibility is an entirely distinct question from the organs of infallibility, as you rightly note. The point is that each of the bishops cannot define anything on their own, so they cannot canonise. They cannot, obviously, decree that the entire Church is to venerate a person at the altar. Canonisation by its very nature involves jurisdiction over the entire Church.

I certainly sympathise with the sedeplenists who are refusing to accept these neo-canonisations, and casting about for reasons why. But the theologians, when explaining infallibility in relation to doctrinal points, emphasise that while the pope is strictly obliged to investigate using all of the usual means of natural enlightment the point of doctrine he proposes to settle, this does not affect the quality of his definitions. If he defines, he speaks infallibly, even if he has acted irresponsibly in approaching the matter. This seems to be equally applicable to canonisations. Anyway, that's just my opinion, for what it's worth.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:39 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 284
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
I stated that I didn't think canonizations were de fide however, they ARE infallible. Reviewing what Bergolio said at these so called canonizations, I don't see how this cannot be viewed as an infallible pronouncement:

"For the honor of the Blessed Trinity, the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the increase of the Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own, after due deliberation and frequent prayer for divine assistance, and having sought the counsel of many of our brother bishops, we declare and define Blessed John XXIII and John Paul II be saints and we enroll them among the saints, decreeing that they are to be venerated as such by the whole church. In the name of the Holy Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

It is my understanding that de fide pronouncements only pertain to things that happened before the close of revelation with the death of St. John. If I am wrong here someone please correct me. Now, if a pope ( or in the above case, a pseudo pope) were to make the above declaration, there can be no doubt that it fulfills all the requirements needed for infallibility. However, this type of ex cathedra decision is NOT something that must be believed with Divine and Catholic faith


Mon Apr 28, 2014 2:51 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
Recusant wrote:
I stated that I didn't think canonizations were de fide however, they ARE infallible. Reviewing what Bergolio said at these so called canonizations, I don't see how this cannot be viewed as an infallible pronouncement:

For the honor of the Blessed Trinity, the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the increase of the Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own, after due deliberation and frequent prayer for divine assistance, and having sought the counsel of many of our brother bishops, we declare and define Blessed John XXIII and John Paul II be saints and we enroll them among the saints, decreeing that they are to be venerated as such by the whole church. In the name of the Holy Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

It is my understanding that de fide pronouncements only pertain to things that happened before the close of revelation with the death of St. John. If I am wrong here someone please correct me. Now, if a pope ( or in the above case, a pseudo pope) were to make the above declaration, there can be no doubt that it fulfills all the requirements needed for infallibility. However, this type of ex cathedra decision is NOT something that must be believed with Divine and Catholic faith


Dear Recusant,

The way to characterise doctrines (including that a man is in heaven and is to be venerated) is disputed. Read this thread, for a thorough exploration of the subject: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1529&start=0

It's a very complex and subtle area of theology.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Apr 28, 2014 3:16 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
RJS wrote:
John Lane wrote:
RJS wrote:
I simply asked what was behind the ellipses. If the ellipses is in the original, that's all you had to say.


You know, on the face of it you are entirely beyond human help.


There you go again. I think you realize quite well that this conversation has not gone well for you. In fact, your errors have been exposed very clearly, and in many cases you have been reduced to silence. So you resort to your typical tactics of attacking your opponent. In this case, I doubt many people who have followed this discussion will be persuaded by this transparent tactic. Although your additional tactic of deleting my posts might help you win some points with others. It is really sad to see someone such as yourself resort to these tactics. I like to think that Catholics on both side of this issue are at least being honest. I had originally thought that about you, but your actions during this discussion, and previous discussions, have led me to believe otherwise.

May the Good God knock you off the pedestal upon which you imagine yourself to sit, so that your pride and pompous arrogance will be replaced with humble docility to the truth. At this point, that is probably your only hope.


Have you read anything anyone other than you has written on this topic?


Mon Apr 28, 2014 5:18 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 284
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
John Lane wrote:
Recusant wrote:
I stated that I didn't think canonizations were de fide however, they ARE infallible. Reviewing what Bergolio said at these so called canonizations, I don't see how this cannot be viewed as an infallible pronouncement:

For the honor of the Blessed Trinity, the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the increase of the Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own, after due deliberation and frequent prayer for divine assistance, and having sought the counsel of many of our brother bishops, we declare and define Blessed John XXIII and John Paul II be saints and we enroll them among the saints, decreeing that they are to be venerated as such by the whole church. In the name of the Holy Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

It is my understanding that de fide pronouncements only pertain to things that happened before the close of revelation with the death of St. John. If I am wrong here someone please correct me. Now, if a pope ( or in the above case, a pseudo pope) were to make the above declaration, there can be no doubt that it fulfills all the requirements needed for infallibility. However, this type of ex cathedra decision is NOT something that must be believed with Divine and Catholic faith


Dear Recusant,

The way to characterise doctrines (including that a man is in heaven and is to be venerated) is disputed. Read this thread, for a thorough exploration of the subject: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1529&start=0

It's a very complex and subtle area of theology.


Thanks for the link John, I somehow missed that thread. Basically what I said above is in agreement with what you were implying in that thread, no?

Again, sorry for derailing the thread.


Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:07 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
Dear Recusant,

I think so, yes.

Look, as you know for ecclesiological reasons I simply cannot see that these men have been true popes (the state of the Church reflects a vacant See, and is impossible if one posits a true pope reigning at each stage of the crisis); further, I think that the reaction of Catholics to these men has been illustrative of that reality. Catholics have not, do not, treat them as popes, they do not learn from them, submit their judgement to them, permit them to govern our lives. This is as true of those mired in the Novus Ordo who have retained the faith as it is of traditionalists. This has been clear in our case (the trads) but it is sufficiently clear in the case of the others also. We are seeing it brought into greater clarity by the reaction to the canonisations. Not just trads but conservative Novus people are reacting negatively to the "canonisation of Vatican II and Assisi" which these acts signify. They are not being accepted passively and with joy; quite the contrary. The exceptions, and they may be a majority, only prove the rule, in that the exceptions are exclusively constituted of those who think that the faith is whatever L'Osservatore Romano says it is this morning - i.e. people who aren't Catholics at all.

As for the theology of canonisation, and whether Fr. Gleize has a point, I maintain the general principle that the process is irrelevant to the security (and therefore the infallibility) of the judgement. Yet I think that the central point he drives at, which is the mysterious question of how a theological conclusion (or a fortiori a dogmatic fact) enters into the fabric of divine revelation (to borrow Mons. Fenton's excellent phrase), is a true mystery. Fr. Marin-Sola and others have debated this at length, and did not reach a consensus, so it's an open question in theology. Fr. Gleize's central point is absolutely the same question, couched in terms appropriate to the matter of canonisation. He is asking what mechanism, so to speak, is employed by the Holy Ghost, cooperating with men, to bring about the complete certitude that is required in order for a proposition ("this man is in heaven and his life, one of heroic not merely ordinary virtue, is to be venerated and imitated") to be "definable." You will have seen from that other thread that I don't find Fr. Marin-Sola's reasoning compelling, but even on my view the question is relevant, because if we are to have what is called purely ecclesiastical faith in a doctrine (e.g. a canonisation, a theological conclusion, a dogmatic fact), infallibly defined as these are, we must posit some theory as to how and why the Holy Ghost acts to bridge the gap between human judgement and divine certitude. On the foundation of the analogy with dogmas, I say that whatever the process, the result is still infallible. But the point I am making is simply this - can we say that Fr. Gleize is certainly wrong in the light of theology, or can we only say that our opinion differs with his. It's an important distinction.

I'll probably have more to say about this over time. Please don't apologise for derailing the thread. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:42 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
Dear RJS,

Tidying up.

RJS wrote:
Now, regarding our respective positions: Your position is that you have the authority to publicly declare that a man 1) elected by the College of Cardinals as Pope, and 2) recognized by virtually all Catholics as Pope, and 3) prayed for in the canon by virtually all priests and Bishops of the world, is not a true Pope.


I have no authority and claim none. Nor do I "declare" anything insofar as that implies that anybody is bound by my opinion.

The true nature of my position, and that of most sedevacantists, is that we understand that we are bound to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, so that on the hypothesis that Bergoglio is pope we have grave obligations towards him. For example, we would be bound to assist at Holy Mass in a rite approved by him, offered by a priest approved by the residential bishop appointed by him, at our local parish church. We would be bound to recognise that the liturgy according to which nearly his whole church worships is good and conducive to salvation. We would be bound to recognise his Code of laws as good and conducive to holiness. In a word, we would be bound to practice the New Religion and to regard it as the true religion revealed by Our Lord, and to see its supernatural goodness. But all of this is in fact absurd in the light of faith, so we are forced to resolve an apparent contradiction. The simple and obvious answer is that this Argentinian fellow's claim, which only arose last year you might recall, is unfounded. He isn't the pope.

Now, you bring in all of the other Catholics, and the hierarchy (or more properly, the "hierarchy"), and point out that our opinion differs with theirs. This is true. This was true in 1986 when Archbishop Lefebvre announced that he might regard Wojtyla as not truly the pope. You have not said why this matters, but I suspect that you would argue somewhat as some others did in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1505

I invite you to read that thread then pose whatever objections you have on that subject there.

RJS wrote:
That is you position and Ballerini doesn’t even allude to it. So saying he agrees with your position is not correct.


Well this is just a rhetorical trick, as it stands. I didn't claim that Ballerini agrees with your caricature of my position. What I actually wrote was that Ballerini agrees with us about who can issue an admonition and then judge according to it. This was in reply to the misrepresentation by selective quotation of Ballerini in the article which forms the OP of this thread. Our reading of Ballerini, once his full text is restored, is common sense, obvious, and should cause no difficulties. The view that I was refuting is forced, stilted, and internally contradictory, and in a word it makes the learned theologian Ballerini look like an illiterate.

RJS wrote:
The R&R position maintains that, since these Popes are, by all visible evidence, wolves in sheep’s clothing, and in all likelihood heretics (at least in the internal forum), they should be avoided. This position is based on the words of our Lord who said to beware of the wolf in sheep’s clothing, and on the authority of St. Paul (discussed above) who said to avoid the heretic. The adherents of R&R don’t claim to have the authority to publicly declare these men to have lost their office due to heresy, but they do have the authority to personally avoid them.


I don't understand why you say "at least in the internal forum" in this place. I would have thought you meant, "at least in the external forum"?

On the matter of avoiding these men, you find space where St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, finds none. He says that one cannot avoid the pope, that this is impossible, an absurdity. It cannot be done. Either you avoid the heretic, in which case you are implicitly but surely judging him not to be pope, or you submit to him truly in practice and in word, in which case you are not avoiding him and you are implicitly or explicitly approving of the religion he practices, preaches, and imposes. But this latter choice is not yours. Ergo.

RJS wrote:
I say Ballerini supports the R&R position, not your position. If you disagree, show me where Ballerinin said a laymen in the pew has the authority, not only to avoid a man he personally judges to be a heretic, but can go further by publicly declaring that the man has lost his office due to heresy. If you can’t show that, you will need to admit that Ballerini does not agree with your position.


This is very silly.

But what is reasonable is to ask you to show me where it says, in any text at all, that in order to issue an admonition to another one must possess Holy Orders, or an ecclesiastical office. You will not find such a text. Likewise I could demand that you show where it says, anywhere in canon law or indeed in any authority at all, that one cannot judge another to be a heretic without the assistance of some authority in the Church. I would describe that view as absurd and contrary to all of tradition. You will never find a text supporting it. I note that you found (it originated on this site of course - we have all the best texts and you all borrow them and nobody ever admits where he got them :) ), that canon from one of the Councils which outlaws the omission of a prelate's name from the diptychs prior to an authoritative condemnation. But that canon is not about heresy, but about other crimes.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu May 01, 2014 9:36 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
RJS wrote:
John Lane wrote:
RJS wrote:
Firstly, St. Paul’s instruction is to avoid the heretic who has been warned once or twice. I agree with that teaching. In fact, I would go even further by saying that Pope Francis, who is, by all appearances, a heretic, should absolutely be avoided, even though I have not personally warned him. I think the circumstances of our present day (mass media and instant communications) justify this position. I believe the amount of information available eliminates the absolute necessity of one or two warnings, which in normal times would be necessary to form the requisite judgment to justify the actions.


St. Robert Bellarmine is incredulous at your astonishing position in relation to the pope.

St. Robert Bellarmine wrote:
[i ]n 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?


To the Doctor of the Church's rhetorical questions, you reply as you have done above. As I've said before, with these kinds of arguments, you won't convince anybody, even if it aids your own resistance to a position which evidently fascinates and attracts you.


It is really a matter of common sense that a person can avoid one who is deemed to be a danger. This is true regardless of the office the person holds, and regardless of whether the danger is physical or spiritual. To quote Guéranger: "When the shepherd becomes a wolf, the first duty of the flock is to defend itself." If Bellarmine were addressing a scenario similar to our circumstances, I have no doubt ...


Well, we'll see shortly how well placed your confidence is...

RJS wrote:
... that he would agree that not only can these dangerous Popes be avoided, but one would even be justified in openly resisting them (which is more than simply avoiding them). But you go further than that by actually deposing them, or, what amounts to the same thing, judging them to be deposed (or never legitimately elected). It is one thing for an individual to avoid a man they consider to be a danger, and another for an inferior to depose a superior. Read what Bellarmine had to say about this and ask yourself whose position he is more in agreement with.

Quote:
“Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior.” (De Romano Pontifice, II.29.)




You forget that we do indeed read Bellarmine and that we very often do know what he really thought. Here you go:

St. Robert Bellarmine wrote:
As to what I wrote in book 2, chapter 29, that the Pontiff cannot be judged or deposed by a council, this is meant aside from the reason of heresy, that is, if he should seem to be wanting to upset or destroy the Church with his way of living and his morality only. (On Temporal and Spiritual Authority, edited, translated, and with an Introduction by Stefania Tutino, Liberty Fund, 2012, p. 304.)


You probably didn't expect to be quite so directly contradicted by the great man himself, but there you go.

RJS wrote:
On the contrary, I have provided a quote explicitly stating that a judgment of guilt must be rendered for a heretical Pope to be removed – even if someone holds to the opinion of Bellarmine who taught that a heretical Pope automatically loses his office.

No, you have not. That is not what Smith says, and even if it were, it is not what Craisson says, to whom Smith refers us for fuller explanation of his own opinion. This has all been proved now with the finding and exposure here of the full texts, so that game's up.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu May 01, 2014 9:48 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
Dear RJS,

I have been directed to another forum where you complain that some of your posts were deleted, and you characterised that as dishonest on my part. This is very strange, but I guess it's an "out" for you. I invite you to put the posts back, since you say you saved them, and let others make up their minds. I deleted them for two reasons, one that you had begun to comment on the theology of another subject, and as usual you were not managing it accurately and I don't have time to debate you on everything. The other reason was that you were attacking me whilst complaining of being attacked, and it was just stupid and ugly. So put the posts here and let everybody see what you are complaining about.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu May 01, 2014 12:50 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
I'd like to tease out further the implications of the position put by Mr. Siscoe.

Robert Siscoe wrote:
While there is indeed a difference between the two on the speculative level, when it comes to the practical level both opinions are in agreement. The difference between the two opinions refers to when and how a heretical Pope loses his office, but both opinions agree that a judgment of guilt must be rendered by the proper authorities, or by the guilty party himself, in order for the Pope to be considered no longer Pope. And such a judgment, and consequent determination, is not the domain of private opinion. [Emphasis added.]


This is the controversial claim that Mr. Siscoe makes the centre-piece of his position. In its favour, despite its terminal lack of clarity (how would a man who has lost his office by heresy issue a judgement of his own guilt? Would not his judgement be that of an ex-Catholic, less in status than any Christian? So an ex-Christian's judgement counts, but not that of Christians? What can this possibly mean?), is the general sense that such things as judgements of heresy and who does or does not possess an ecclesiastical office are matters not for the laity but for the clergy, and particularly the senior clergy. This we readily, even emphatically, agree with. The situation in the Church is exceptional, and the necessity for a layman to form his own judgements about heresy and its consequences is exceptional also. The error that Mr. Siscoe makes is in simply assuming, with no warrant whatsoever, that the usual course of things is the only lawful or proper one. All of history cries out against this very shoddy assumption.

There are broadly two kinds of arguments which count against Mr. Siscoe's view. First, those which show that it is false in terms of Catholic doctrine and law. Second, those which show that it is not factual as a claim about what the various theologians held. On this second line I am thinking of Bellarmine himself, whose opinion is manifestly not that a heretic pope would only lose his office if and when some authority warned him or judged him guilty of heresy. Taking this point first, let us look at Bellarmine's arguments.

What does it mean to say that a man loses his office "automatically" or "without a declaration" or that he is "ipso facto deposed"? Well, for Bellarmine it means that the Church does not intervene at all, neither at the point of judging that the culprit is a heretic nor at the point of the loss of office. Let us take each point in turn. First, the judgement of heresy. St. Robert writes, "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." This is already sufficiently clear. If Bellarmine held Siscoe's notion this text would be gravely misleading. He would have had to have written something like, "but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ, by the very fact of continuing to preach heresy after receiving an authoritative admonition", or some such words. But that is not his meaning, and so he does say anything like that. Bellarmine adds later, "Pope St. Celestine I ... wrote: 'It is evident that he [who has been excommunicated by Nestorius] has remained and remains in communion with us, and that we do not consider destituted, anyone who has been excommunicated or deprived of his charge, either episcopal or clerical, by Bishop Nestorius or by the others who followed him, after they commenced preaching heresy. For he who had already shown himself as deserving to be excommunicated, could not excommunicate anyone by his sentence.'
"And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople, Pope St. Celestine I says: 'The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.'"

Note how Pope St. Celestine refers to Nestorius, not as a man who has been judged by some authority or other, but as having lost his jurisdiction, his office, purely by having preached heresy. As St. Celestine puts it, Nestorius had "already shown himself as deserving to be excommunicated". So he had not been excommunicated, and this one of Bellarmine's chief points, something he repeatedly emphasises. There can be no doubt that he would not recognise as his own, Mr. Siscoe's version of his doctrine.

One may wonder how the pope could be so confident that Nestorius was formally a heretic, and not just a confused and mistaken Catholic? Well, simply put, Nestorius knew the doctrine of the Church, which on the point he was quibbling on, was sufficiently clear. The Church did not need to warn such a man, and as de Lugo has pointed out (quoted above by da Silveira) she does not always in practice issue any warnings before judging a culprit guilty of heresy.

I encourage interested persons to read slowly through Bellarmine's text here: http://strobertbellarmine.net/bellarm.htm It isn't very long and it is full of instruction.

Moving from Bellarmine's own doctrine to that of the Church, note that Pope St. Celestine and many of the Fathers (Bellarmine cites quite a number and says blandly that "all the ancient Fathers" "teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction") are apparently entirely in accord with Bellarmine. But since some approved theoogians have taken a different view, we will leave aside these proofs and look at later texts. So, what do we have?

Well, firstly we have Paul IV's famous bull, Cum ex apostolatus. It teaches us that any layman may reject a papal claimant who is a heretic, even if the entire Church should accept his claim. This is a crushing text for anybody making the kind of claim that Siscoe makes.

Now this bull was abrogated by the Code of 1917, except insofar as its provisions were incorporated in the Code. And as a matter of fact, the Fontes (i.e. "sources") of the Code tells us that Canon 188:4 is based upon Cum ex apostolatus. So, what does Canon 188:4 tell us? That anybody who defects from the Catholic faith loses his office automatically without any declaration. Is this canon penal? No. Does it represent therefore a penalty, following on from an official admonition? No. So it isn't a penal canon, and a fortiori it is not a ferendae sententiae penalty (i.e. one inflicted by authority for a crime). It is, in the explanation of the commentators, a tacit resignation, brought about by the very act of professing heresy.

All that remains is for the layman to recognise the fact and act accordingly. Which is exactly what occurred many times in the Patristic age, in accord with the unanimous doctrine of the Fathers, as Bellarmine proves and explains.

As I have said before, the only credible objection to the sede vacante thesis is the notion that Francis does not meet the canonical or theological definition of "heretic." For those who have that view, sedevacantism is not a convincing position. For the rest of us, it's almost obvious. For mine, it's absolutely compelling.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu May 01, 2014 1:01 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:25 am
Posts: 98
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
John,

I’d like to keep this conversation going. I think it has the potential of doing some good as our respective positions are further clarified and challenged. However, I don’t want our discussions to descend into back and forth ad hominem attacks, as they have a tendency to do. Therefore, I am going to suggest that we agree to a few things up front. If you will agree to avoid condescending and derogatory comments, I promise not to respond aggressively toward you. You might not realize that your tone is often condescending and derogatory, but it comes across that way. I have seen you do so with other people as well, and it has always annoyed me. I realize that my response to such comments does not help the situation. Let’s try to keep our discussions on the intellectual level. You make your arguments, and I will make mine. No need for us to attack each other or even be angry that the other person disagrees with our position. Also, if you delete any posts, please post something saying what was deleted.

To begin with, you said I mischaracterized you position. If that is so, I need to know how I have done so. I will explain what I believe your position to be (which I disagree with), and you can let me know where I am mistaken.

I understand you position to be that you are permitted to publicly declare that a man who has been 1) elected Pope by the College of Cardinals, 2) is recognized by virtually the entire world (Catholic or not) as Pope, 3) whose name is included in the Mass of virtually every Priest and Bishop, is not a true Pope. And furthermore, that you are permitted to try and persuade other people that the man is not a Pope, and should not be recognized as such.

If that is a mischaracterization of your position, please explain how.


Thu May 01, 2014 5:22 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
Dear RJS,

We don't agree on much at all. First, you need to apologise for suggesting that John Daly or Cristian or I would part-translate a text and hide the rest. That was a despicable suggestion and I have pointed it out yet you act as if it never occurred. Second, you complained about ad hominems which didn't exist - you obviously thought they did - and then attacked me in turn. When I deleted the relevant posts rather than have to debate such irrelevancies with you, you went to another forum and defamed me there. Since you saved the exchange, post it here or email it to me and I will post it. I'm not interested in discussing anything else until we have cleared up these injustices.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri May 02, 2014 12:04 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:25 am
Posts: 98
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
John Lane wrote:
Dear RJS,

We don't agree on much at all. First, you need to apologise for suggesting that John Daly or Cristian or I would part-translate a text and hide the rest. That was a despicable suggestion and I have pointed it out yet you act as if it never occurred. Second, you complained about ad hominems which didn't exist - you obviously thought they did - and then attacked me in turn. When I deleted the relevant posts rather than have to debate such irrelevancies with you, you went to another forum and defamed me there. Since you saved the exchange, post it here or email it to me and I will post it. I'm not interested in discussing anything else until we have cleared up these injustices.


I suspected that you wouldn't agree to a discussion in which you refrained from engaging in condescending and derogatory remarks. I have already concluded that such remarks are the necessary accidents you use to cloak the lack of substance you have in response to arguments against your position. In other words, it is a tactic and you can't do without it. Maybe it is best that we don't continue this discussion.

But I do want to address one point you raised, especially since Cristian has always been very kind, and I would not want him to think I accused him of anything.

As I believe I mentioned earlier, when I saw the quotation with ellipsis, I thought something had been removed. I didn't think Cristian was hiding anything; I just thought he didn't consider it pertinent to the discussion. Now, do you consider it odd that someone would see an ellipsis and think something had been removed? That is what a normal person would think, since the purpose of an ellipsis is to indicate something has been removed. Here is the definition of ellipsis:

Ellipsis: 1. a) the omission of one or more words that are obviously understood but that must be supplied to make a construction grammatically complete; b : a sudden leap from one topic to another. 2. marks or a mark (as …) indicating an omission (as of words) or a pause

Now, when I saw the ellipsis, my reply was to thank Cristian and asked if we could get a more complete translation.

Then, when John Daly translated the same portion with the same ellipses, I became curious. But I didn't accuse anyone of anything. All I said was "I hope" something that favors my position is not being removed. What I did not know is that the book, from which the translation was taken, itself included the ellipses from the original author (who the book was quoting). All you had to do was tell me that. Instead, you accused me of being rude. In fact, in one of your posts, you used the word "rude" or "rudeness" no less than 7 times.

Anyway, I wanted to clear that up so Cristian did not think I was accusing him of anything.

And forget about having a further discussion. My hope was that we could have a gentlemanly discussion, but judging from your last reply, it is clear that wouldn't happen.


Fri May 02, 2014 12:55 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
If you didn't mean to be rude (i.e. your incredible rudeness was unintentional) then you could easily have apologised. Even now you don't do so, but rather you seek to explain it away. Also, you were more rude to JS Daly than to Cristian, yet you only say that you hope Cristian was not offended. The father of ten children who took his time to translate a text which was YOUR source doesn't deserve common courtesy, rather he deserves his name being slyly besmirched?

The most incredible thing about this is not your curious morality, however. I'm getting used to that. What's incredible is that the ellipses are in the Latin of Craisson, which I went and found for you, and which I posted here. My own opinion is that you know so little Latin that you couldn't even identify which part of Craisson was the part Cristian and JS Daly translated, so you couldn't recognise the ellipses in the original. That's what I think. Well, what else could one think? You can imagine what else I think when I see you commenting that if nobody else will translate some Latin for you, you will have to do it yourself. :oops: No, you won't be translating any Latin. You only ever use English sources.

You accused me of attacking you and then deleting the evidence. When challenged to put the posts back here - knowing that your charges would collapse - you dodged the suggestion.

Now you dodge again and accuse me - again - of tactical dishonesty. That might be how people in your circles operate, but we don't. And that, sir, is well known.

I find all of this disgusting and unworthy of a decent forum, so I'll be deleting it in a few days when everybody relevant to it has had a chance to see it and form their own judgements.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri May 02, 2014 1:39 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
I see that Sean Johnson has not read this thread and is confused about the facts.

Siscoe quoted Smith. He gave no page number. I found a copy of Smith on archive.org and located the page number, and provided that in this thread. Smith gave as his source, in a footnote, "Craiss." Siscoe had asked, in his article, for others to look at the footnotes and find Smith's sources if possible. So I did. I worked out (my guardian angel was hard at work) that Craiss. was Craisson, a French canonist. Then I found his book on archive.org. Likewise I followed Craisson's reference to a mysterious "R. de M." and (guardian angel working even harder) located the source - Eugène Roquette de Malviès, another French canonist. Then by an incredible piece of luck (guardian angel producing miracles) found his work on some site I'd never seen before, scanned and available for free. All of this I presented and gave links to the actual pages in each source, so that nobody would have to do any work to view them - just click on the links. RJS said that he was indeed "downloading" them, whatever he meant by that. Anyway, below is one place where I provided some of this information.

John Lane wrote:
Btw, you asked about Smith's sources. Here's Phillips: https://archive.org/details/a603824201philuoft and Craisson (your real master) here: https://archive.org/stream/manualetotiu ... 2/mode/2up (n. 682). Now you have the Latin original. That will look better in your articles.


If you are too lazy to click on that link to Craisson, below is a screen shot of what you would have seen if you did. (No. 682 is the reference.)

Now, having found out who "Craiss." was, then having found the text itself, I asked Cristian and JSD to translate it. They both did, independently. Neither knew I had asked the other. And then I posted both translations to the thread. So, what we had was an opponent using a source, without a proper reference; we went and got that source, and then we went and got the source's source, a much more substantial writer and in Latin, so a more serious work. We translated it twice, and gave both translations. We did all the archeology and the work to make the material available in English, but with the Latin one click away. We have been utterly transparent, doing all that we can to get to the truth and assist even our opponent here to prove his case, if in fact the authorities do actually assist him. What do we get? Abuse. Worse, it was about the most stupid abuse one could imagine. Anybody who looks at the Latin of Craisson can see the ellipses. Yet we are asked if we are hiding something useful to RJS's case?

Some people are beyond human help.


Attachments:
Craisson_page.jpg
Craisson_page.jpg [ 534.69 KiB | Viewed 30403 times ]

_________________
In Christ our King.
Fri May 02, 2014 3:15 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
From elsewhere.

SeanJohnson wrote:
Was John's honor REALLY so impugned by a debate opponent asking what the ellipses might have left out?


No, and that comment only shows that you haven't followed this at all. It isn't chiefly about my honour, it's about that of others. But even that is a secondary point - I can and ought to defend my honour in circumstances where I judge it necessary or useful.

RJS initially said this: "Also, there are a lot of ellipses in the quotation. If we could get a more complete translation and a page number that would also be great." No problem. Nobody was insulted by that, no comment was made about it. It was merely hilarious, given that it revealed that RJS couldn't find the Latin on the two-page spread we had already provided the link to. See the image above.

What was insulting was the next example:
RJS wrote:
Thanks also to John Daly for his translation, but I notice that he left out the same parts as Cristian. Any chance we can see what's hidden behind the ellipses? Hopefully it is not being removed because it further supports my position. Or if someone will provide the page number I'll see if I can translate it myself.


Now in any circumstances that would have been an unacceptable insinuation, but in these circumstances? It was ingratitude salted by malice.

SeanJohnson wrote:
He found that not only unreasonable, but insulting?

Seriously?

I can pretty much guarantee you that if John and I were debating and I used the old "...," the very first thing he would demand of me would be to supply what was missing!


I might, but not if you were gifting me a Latin text, and two alternative translations of that Latin text, and the Latin original had the same ellipses as the translations. No, I don't think that in those circumstances I would demand that you fill in the ellipses. That would make me look like an idiot, and an ungrateful one. Don't you agree, Mr. Johnson?



Edit. PS, Mr. Johnson, you might note that before RJS made known his suspicions about JSD's translation, I had already posted this:
John Lane wrote:
Anyway, you can look at the original that Craisson is quoting (Eugène Roquette de Malviès Institutiones Iuris Canonici) here: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=u ... up;seq=287
You may not realise what that is, so I will tell you. It's the source that Craisson has quoted in his book. That's why I called it, "the original that Craisson is quoting." Forgive me if you think I'm over-emphasising obvious facts. I've learned that in this present company there is no such thing as over-emphasising obvious facts. Now Craisson, very famously now after all this discussion of ellipses, left out material that he didn't regard as important (and he was right). So this Roquette de Malviès text is the "full text," the very thing that RJS asked for in his uniquely charming manner a few posts later (although, of course, he didn't realise that Craisson did not have the full text, and he would have to look where he had already been told by me to look, something he was either unable or unwilling to do).

Also, somebody suggested that RJS is RJ Stove. RJ Stove is a friend of mine, and a gentleman. Enough said.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri May 02, 2014 4:54 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
Dr. Smith's quote is the key subject discussed in this thread.

Robert Siscoe wrote:
But what is important to note is that both opinions agree that for a sitting Pope to be removed he must first be declared guilty of heresy by the Church – by an ecumenical council, or by the College of Cardinals. The following is taken from Elements of Ecclesiastic Law by Sebastian B. Smith, D.D., Professor of canon law.

“Question: Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate?

Answer: There are two opinions: one holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the church, i.e., by an ecumenical council or the College of Cardinals. The question is hypothetical rather than practical”. (1)

As we can see, the difference between the two opinions pertains to the hypothetical question alone (a question of the speculative order) – namely, when and how a heretical Pope loses his office. On the practical level, both opinions agree that a judgment of guilt and declaration must be rendered – and this judgment belongs to the Church, not to individual Catholics. This is a point that every Sedevacantist I have spoken with, or otherwise corresponded with, has missed.


The quote from Smith is a summary of the opinion given by a canonist called Craisson. Craisson's text is as follows:
Quote:
682: Question 6. Whether a Pope who falls into heresy ipso iure forfeits the Pontificate. I answer, with R. de M. (in his Institutiones Juris Canonici, t.1, p.265): “There are two opinions, says, Azor. (…) one of which holds that he is indeed deprived of the Pontificate by divine law but is to be declared afterwards by sentence of the Church to have fallen from the Pontifical dignity – this opinion is held by Paludanus, etc. (…) A heretic is outside the Church and therefore cannot be considered to be a member of the Church, so how can someone be head of the Church who is not a member of the Church? It seems that this can also be deduced from the chapters Quod autem; Acacius;and Audivimus, caus.24, q.1, etc.”.

“The second opinion denies in general that a pope who becomes a heretic is removed by divine law from his authority, holding rather that he is to be removed. This is the opinion of Cajetan, etc. (…). For the other bishops are not considered to be ipso jure deprived…as soon as they become heretics. Until (…) at least their crime has been declared, meanwhile (…) their acts are valid… The Pope would have to be deprived by a General Council if he were to fall into heresy.” See also what is said below (§6123)
From: https://archive.org/stream/manualetotiu ... 2/mode/2up

Translated by JS Daly.


This opinion of Craisson's is referred by him to Eugène Roquette de Malviès. The latter's book can be read here: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=u ... up;seq=287

Now, Mr. Siscoe tells us that what Smith means is the following.

1. "both opinions agree that for a sitting Pope to be removed he must first be declared guilty of heresy by the Church – by an ecumenical council, or by the College of Cardinals."
2. "As we can see, the difference between the two opinions pertains to the hypothetical question alone (a question of the speculative order) – namely, when and how a heretical Pope loses his office. On the practical level, both opinions agree that a judgment of guilt and declaration must be rendered"
3. "and this judgment belongs to the Church, not to individual Catholics."

Clearly Siscoe's first point is meant to assert that both opinions agree that a heretic pope, no matter how manifest his heresy is, would lose his office only if and when some body of men within the Church who are invested with some authority (cardinals or bishops in an imperfect general council) issue a public judgement of guilt. This is not what Smith's text actually says, and if it did, it would be untrue, for Bellarmine's school maintains that such a judgement of heresy would be an heretical act, on the principle that no-one is above the pope and therefore no-one can judge the pope.

Siscoe's second point appears to be a comment upon Smith's sentence, "The question is hypothetical rather than practical." But if it is, it is completely misplaced. Smith means by that sentence merely to reinforce his primary position, that no pope ever has been a heretic and no pope ever will be. That is what Smith means and this is obvious in the context. But Siscoe thinks it is a comment upon the difference between the two opinions of theologians on the pope-heretic question. Siscoe's opinion is that in Bellarmine's theology hypothetically a pope might lose his office authomatically, but in practice some body of men would have to render judgement against him in order for anybody to know this or to express it publicly. Well, we can comfortably leave that for the reader to assess for himself. It's manifestly a mistake by Siscoe.

Siscoe's third point has been discussed at length already. Firstly, Smith doesn't say it. This is even more clear in Craisson, Smith's master. Craisson says that according to Bellarmine's theory, "he is indeed deprived of the Pontificate by divine law but is to be declared afterwards by sentence of the Church to have fallen from the Pontifical dignity." Now, such a judgement would indeed be lawful and not heretical, for it would be the judgement of a man who is not, at that point, pope. But more importantly, it says nothing about how the faithful are to react in the mean time. So it does not support Siscoe's main point, that it is unlawful for somebody to conclude that a manifest heretic is not pope prior to the judgement of some authority. Indeed, it is incompatible with such a position, for the following simple and undeniable reason: for the cardinals or the bishops to proceed to judging a pope would be heretical.

What must actually happen is that somebody, somewhere, points out that the claimed pope is actually a heretic and therefore not pope. There are historical precedents for this, the case of Liberius and the case of Pascal II. The latter case is presented here: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=989 Anybody interested in the subject of heretical popes should read that thread carefully.

After such an admonition (Paul VI received plenty of admonitions, as we have already mentioned), a claimed pope who proceeded to maintain his heresies would be regarded by anybody with the necessary knowledge not to be pope, and those with responsibility in the Church could (and should) then act to secure the common good by whatever means lay in their power. A judgement of heresy by the college of cardinals, or even better, by an imperfect general council, would be ideal. But importantly, such an act would not be judging the pope, but rather judging a non-pope (perhaps, at most, an ex-pope). It seems at best bizarre to assert that a man who is not pope ought to be regarded as pope unless and until men with authority in the Church notice the fact. There is no authority for such a view, and in fact it is directly against the explicit papal legislation of Pope Paul IV, Cum ex apostolatus.

The question of a "heretic pope" was, until 1958 at least, hypothetical. It has become, since then, actual. Efforts by misinformed men to obscure the problem and to render the faithful helpless in the face of heresy are to be deplored.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri May 02, 2014 11:18 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
John Lane wrote:
Anybody interested in the subject of heretical popes should read that thread carefully.


Well, Mr. Lane, this guarantees that few of your critics will read the thread you reference, for most of them are willing only to read what supports their pre-determined premise, even if that support is based on inaccuracies and faulty interpretations, that the sedevacantist view is wrong.


Fri May 02, 2014 11:47 am
Profile

Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 4:53 pm
Posts: 100
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
John

Anyone who has seriously read through the discussion should not be confused at all, and can honestly see RJS was not only being intellectual dishonest with you, but worse yet was lying to himself. He did falsely accuse you of dishonesty by implying you were leaving text out of the translation that supported his position. An honest person would have apologized upon realizing his mistake, but I have yet to see such an apology.

His use of straw man arguments and constantly changing topics left no doubt that you were debating with someone who did not have a serious argument. And anyone who wishes to take on St. Robert Bellarmine and claim he had no common sense believing a pontiff who was a heretic would be a real paradox, well as you said is truly hopeless.

RJS I am afraid is a classic sedeplenist who, while in his heart realizes the truth of the sedevacantist position, has allowed his personal pride to blind him. On one hand he is condemning us for publicly stating what we hold to be true with moral certainty, however, when defending his own position, he points to all the confusion and appeals we should be more open to his position. I found his double standard to be disgusting.

Quote:
RJS:
Now, regarding the present "canonizations". Firstly, it must be said that we are living through extraordinary times, a point that Sedevacantists should readily admit. I say that because, according to just about all Sedevacantists, there has been no visible Pope for over 50 years. Instead, during this time, virtually the entire world has recognized a false Pope as the true Pope. Certainly an extraordinary situation if there ever was one! Secondly, most Sedevacantists will claim that there is no visible Bishop with jurisdiction. By "visible", I mean recognized publicly as the lawful Bishop of a diocese. Instead, they will claim that the Bishops recognized publicly are not the true Bishop, either because their ordination was invalid, or because they are public heretics. This is also an extraordinary situation. So my saying we are living through an extraordinary time is something that Sedevacantists should readily admit


And adding insult to injury, he even added that the Sedevacantist position is a real possibility contrary to his own argument as it was the only way he could argue that these last two "canonizations" were not infallible. Worse yet he denied the infallibility of canonizations and had the gall to accuse sedevacantists that we are doing something wrong by holding what the saints and the Doctors of the Church taught to be true. Finally to ice the cake, he clearly stated while he disregards the authoritative pronouncements of his recognized hierarchy without one positive doubt in regards to the legitimacy of their pronouncement, we sedevacantists are wrong for not publicly recognizing them as our hierarchy when we have positive doubt they are not our hierarchy. Hopeless or helpless, I almost feel sorry for him as he truly appears to be a drowning man flailing in the water of confusion.


Fri May 02, 2014 12:04 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pm
Posts: 95
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
Hello,

I'm Maria Looch and am new to this site. Can someone please explain to me who Robert Siscoe is and give me his credentials? Is he reputable and scholarly?

Thank you very much,
Maria


Fri May 02, 2014 7:21 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:25 am
Posts: 98
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
John Lane wrote:
My own opinion is that you know so little Latin that you couldn't even identify which part of Craisson was the part Cristian and JS Daly translated, so you couldn't recognise the ellipses in the original. That's what I think. Well, what else could one think? You can imagine what else I think when I see you commenting that if nobody else will translate some Latin for you, you will have to do it yourself. :oops: No, you won't be translating any Latin. You only ever use English sources.


I never claimed to be fluent in Latin. I could probably translate of a few paragraphs, but I am certainly not a Latin scholar by any stretch of the imagination.

But what I find interesting is how you use this point to engage in one of your typical tactics of denigration by point out how little Latin I know, when you yourself had to have someone else translate the passage! Talk about hypocrisy.

I have much more to say, but I've had about all I can take of your pompous and condescending manner. I'll leave you to preach to your Sedevacantist choir, since your pride obviously prevents you from debating an opponent in a conversation without habitually engaging in derogatory statements. And for my part, I don't want to descend down to the same level by attacking you in response, which I realize, by experience, will inevitably occur. Sayonara


Fri May 02, 2014 8:08 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
Maria Looch wrote:
Hello,

I'm Maria Looch and am new to this site. Can someone please explain to me who Robert Siscoe is and give me his credentials? Is he reputable and scholarly?

Thank you very much,
Maria


Robert Siscoe is an attorney, if I am not mistaken. He writes as a columnist for The Remnant newspaper though I don't know how regularly. He is a layman and I've never seen that he claims to have any credentials in theology or canon law. You should read through his article that begins this topic as well as Mr. Lane's reply. He seems to be a rabid anti-sedevacantist.

Is he reputable or scholarly? I've not been impressed with anything he's written that I have read (which probably amounts to two or three articles), but I think you should probably develop your own opinion after reading through this topic.


Sat May 03, 2014 1:29 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
Dear TKGS,

I agree he isn't impressive, and I wonder if that's partly because he is so obviously fresh to the topic. If he had perhaps studied what serious men have already written on the relevant questions, he might avoid the kind of howlers he has made in this article.

A good start would JS Daly's study, The Right to Judge Heresy: Can private individuals recognise someone as a heretic before the direct judgment of the church? here: http://strobertbellarmine.net/judgeheresy.html

He might also have come across texts such as that of the greatest commentary on Canon Law, Wernz-Vidal, here: http://strobertbellarmine.net/wernzvidal.html

These authoritative authors mention the possibility of a declaration in the case of a heretic pope.

Wernz-Vidal wrote:
Finally, there is the fifth opinion - that of Bellarmine himself - which was expressed initially and is rightly defended by Tanner and others as the best proven and the most common. For he who is no longer a member of the body of the Church, i.e. the Church as a visible society, cannot be the head of the Universal Church. But a Pope who fell into public heresy would cease by that very fact to be a member of the Church. Therefore he would also cease by that very fact to be the head of the Church.

Indeed, a publicly heretical Pope, who, by the commandment of Christ and the Apostle must even be avoided because of the danger to the Church, must be deprived of his power as almost all admit. But he cannot be deprived by a merely declaratory sentence...

Wherefore, it must be firmly stated that a heretical Roman Pontiff would by that very fact forfeit his power. Although a declaratory sentence of the crime which is not to be rejected in so far as it is merely declaratory would be such that the heretical Pope would not be judged, but would rather be shown to have been judged.


That text alone demolishes Siscoe's rash and erroneous use of Smith's comment. Note that it is a post-1917 work, and it says that Bellarmine's doctrine is "the most common." I'm constantly amazed at how few people realise what a dominant position St. Robert had reached in ecclesiology by the time he was declared a Doctor of the Church in 1931.

And there's plenty more, as you know. What can we do but publish the texts and hope people read them?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat May 03, 2014 3:35 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
RJS wrote:
I have much more to say, but I've had about all I can take of your pompous and condescending manner.


Look, I really am not conscious of being pompous but if that's the impression then it isn't good and I thank you for pointing it out. I know I am condescending to people such as yourself, however. Humility is truth, so while I have oodles of pride that I need to rid myself of, the fact is this is my 25th year of studying the sedevacantist position* and I know immediately whether somebody else has a clue about the relevant materials and the pertinent questions. You don't. I'm not going to treat you as if you do, for several excellent reasons. And try and remember that you volunteered to enter the lists, so please don't complain about the result. You're not some quiet fellow in the pew wondering what it all means. You stuck your head up all by yourself, to tell the world how wrong other people are.

We've given you a great deal of help in this thread, despite the bruises to your ego, so perhaps one day you'll be grateful. Right now just be assured that you are in my prayers.


* I accepted the sedevacantist explanation of the crisis in 1989. I was fascinated by it and have been ever since, obtaining every article or other data that I could on the relevant theology and fact. I began writing to aid my own understanding in the early 'nineties, but didn't publish anything until nearly the end of that decade.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat May 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:25 am
Posts: 98
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
John Lane wrote:
RJS wrote:
I have much more to say, but I've had about all I can take of your pompous and condescending manner.


Look, I really am not conscious of being pompous but if that's the impression then it isn't good and I thank you for pointing it out. I know I am condescending to people such as yourself, however. Humility is truth, so while I have oodles of pride that I need to rid myself of, the fact is this is my 25th year of studying the sedevacantist position* and I know immediately whether somebody else has a clue about the relevant materials and the pertinent questions. You don't. I'm not going to treat you as if you do, for several excellent reasons. And try and remember that you volunteered to enter the lists, so please don't complain about the result. You're not some quiet fellow in the pew wondering what it all means. You stuck your head up all by yourself, to tell the world how wrong other people are.

We've given you a great deal of help in this thread, despite the bruises to your ego, so perhaps one day you'll be grateful. Right now just be assured that you are in my prayers.


John,

There's something that you seem unaware of. I thank you for locating the two sources I asked for. And I thank Cristian for translating them. You referred back to your finding these sources and having them translated a number of times, but what you don't seem to acknowledge is that none of these sources confirmed you position. The citation from Craisson that Cristian was kind enough to translate confirmed what I have maintained, namely, that even if one holds to the opinion of Bellarmine, "a sentence by the Church must declare he fell from the pontifical dignity due to his crime of heresy". That confirms my position. So it is great that you found the book on archive.org (which you pointed out a number of times) but what it teaches does not support your position.

Something else I did not notice at the time is the Cristian, in his charity, actually did look up what was excluded by the ellipsis. You found the source within the source, and Cristian read it. But this source also did not agree with your position. When Cristian summarize what Azor wrote, your response was: "It's an obvious example of a man outside of his speciality." So neither of these sources that you looked up and Cristian translated confirmed you opinion.

Another point I want to address is my being rude by asking if Cristian would give a more complete translation (since, at the time, I did not realize Craisson was quoting someone else and using ellipsis). You have maintained that you consider that to be extremely rude of me, but Cristian gave no indicating of thinking it was rude. For the context, this is my original comment and his reply.

Quote:
RJS: Many thanks to Cristian for translating this. I wonder if he can also translate the passage from Phillips (which I believe is in German, not Latin). Also, there are a lot of ellipses in the quotation. If we could get a more complete translation and a page number that would also be great.


This is Cristian's reply:

Quote:
Cristian: You are welcome! Unfortunatelly no, I can´t read German, but if you need some help with some Latin, Spanish or French text just let me know!


I don't see any indication that he was offended. It seems to me that he understood my comment, not as an insult, but as simply asking for a more complete translation, which he actually went and found.

And my similar comments about John Daly's translation were also not an accusation. I merely expressed my curiosity that the same ellipses were included in his translation.

But aside from these two incidents which you focused so much attention on over the past few days, we had much substantial discussion, and that discussion did not favor your position. In fact, it was clear to me that it favored my position.

It might be that our personalities are simply too incompatible to engage in these discussions. It is too bad, because I think some good could come if we simply remained in the level of substantive discussions.

I am actually tempted to offer another olive branch and see if we can agree to move forward with no ad hominems, but it might be best to end it on a positive note. No hard feelings on my end, and I am sorry if I offended you by my aggressive remarks. Like I said, it may just be that our personalities (at least over the computer) do not mesh.

You are in my prayers as well. In fact, I have included you in most of my Rosaries this week, and I think I even offered a communion for you.


Sat May 03, 2014 11:35 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
Dear RJS,

RJS wrote:
There's something that you seem unaware of. I thank you for locating the two sources I asked for. And I thank Cristian for translating them. You referred back to your finding these sources and having them translated a number of times, but what you don't seem to acknowledge is that none of these sources confirmed you position. The citation from Craisson that Cristian was kind enough to translate confirmed what I have maintained, namely, that even if one holds to the opinion of Bellarmine, "a sentence by the Church must declare he fell from the pontifical dignity due to his crime of heresy". That confirms my position. So it is great that you found the book on archive.org (which you pointed out a number of times) but what it teaches does not support your position.


Craisson says that according to Bellarmine's theory, "he is indeed deprived of the Pontificate by divine law but is to be declared afterwards by sentence of the Church to have fallen from the Pontifical dignity." Why would you chop that word "afterwards" out of the quote? Further, you seem determined to make something out of the word "must" which JS Daly's translation doesn't even have! But let's suppose the imperative is accurate. What would it tell us? Nothing, for Craisson says that what happens must happen "afterwards" (i.e. after the loss of office by divine law) so that whatever it means it cannot mean that the man remains pope, and it certainly cannot meant that a legal fiction by which we all pretend that he is pope is to be observed, for if such an extreme position were truly that of Craisson's then he would have to say so explicitly. It's a truly bizarre notion, which you will not find anywhere.

RJS wrote:
Something else I did not notice at the time is the Cristian, in his charity, actually did look up what was excluded by the ellipsis. You found the source within the source, and Cristian read it. But this source also did not agree with your position. When Cristian summarize what Azor wrote, your response was: "It's an obvious example of a man outside of his speciality." So neither of these sources that you looked up and Cristian translated confirmed you opinion.


Azor essentially agrees with Cajetan. This does not help you. Nor is Azor some big name. Neither I nor Cristian had even heard of him before we saw him in Craisson. But more importantly, Cajetan's opinion is not the common one in the modern era, Bellarmine's is. He's the Doctor (i.e. teacher) of the Universal Church. Why would one choose NOT to learn from him?

RJS wrote:
Another point I want to address is my being rude by asking if Cristian would give a more complete translation (since, at the time, I did not realize Craisson was quoting someone else and using ellipsis). You have maintained that you consider that to be extremely rude of me, but Cristian gave no indicating of thinking it was rude.


We agree on that much. But it was the further comments to JS Daly that constituted the rudeness, and the implication of those reflected on all of us, as is manifest to anybody with a functioning brain. If JS Daly was hiding things in the ellipses, then so had Cristian, despite your earlier much more polite and reasonable comments to the latter. That is, that we had all conspired.

Try apologising instead.

RJS wrote:

And my similar comments about John Daly's translation were also not an accusation. I merely expressed my curiosity that the same ellipses were included in his translation.


Well, there you go. I don't suppose you'll find one man in a hundred to agree with you there!

RJS wrote:
I am sorry if I offended you by my aggressive remarks.


I was only offended for my friends. But thank you for the apology.

RJS wrote:
You are in my prayers as well. In fact, I have included you in most of my Rosaries this week, and I think I even offered a communion for you.


Thank you.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun May 04, 2014 12:03 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:25 am
Posts: 98
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
John,

Let's keep this going. I have several questions for you that I will post when I get some time.


Sun May 04, 2014 12:25 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
RJS, I've answered all your questions and you haven't answered mine. If you want to keep something going, answer the quesions you have been asked already. And when a point is countered, reply. Try, "No, I disagree, here's why..." or "Fair hit," or even, "I concede."

Maybe for a start, you could explain why that word "afterwards" (postea) evaporates from your quote of Craisson, without so much as an, er, ellipsis to mark its absence... :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun May 04, 2014 6:50 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:25 am
Posts: 98
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
John Lane wrote:
RJS, I've answered all your questions and you haven't answered mine. If you want to keep something going, answer the quesions you have been asked already. And when a point is countered, reply. Try, "No, I disagree, here's why..." or "Fair hit," or even, "I concede."

Maybe for a start, you could explain why that word "afterwards" (postea) evaporates from your quote of Craisson, without so much as an, er, ellipsis to mark its absence... :)


Fair enough. I'll begin by answering that question, as well as a related point you brought up in the same paragraph. I'll do so this afternoon. My only request is that you support your position with authoritative sources, as I myself will do for mine.


Sun May 04, 2014 11:35 am
Profile

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:25 am
Posts: 98
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
Quote:
John Lane:

1) Craisson says that according to Bellarmine's theory, "he is indeed deprived of the Pontificate by divine law but is to be declared afterwards by sentence of the Church to have fallen from the Pontifical dignity." Why would you chop that word "afterwards" out of the quote?

2) Further, you seem determined to make something out of the word "must" which JS Daly's translation doesn't even have! But let's suppose the imperative is accurate. What would it tell us? Nothing, for Craisson says that what happens must happen "afterwards" (i.e. after the loss of office by divine law) so that whatever it means it cannot mean that the man remains pope, and it certainly cannot meant that a legal fiction by which we all pretend that he is pope is to be observed, for if such an extreme position were truly that of Craisson's then he would have to say so explicitly. It's a truly bizarre notion, which you will not find anywhere.


I will respond to the first point now, and the second point this afternoon or tomorrow. In responding to the second point, I will cite a Canonists that discusses what you referred to as “a truly bizarre notion” that I "will not find anywhere”.

Question: Why did I not include the word “afterwards” when I quoted Caisson?

Answer: Because that is not a point of dispute. We both agree that, according to the First Opinion (that of Bellarmine), an heretical Pope automatically loses his office. This is opposed to the Second Opinion which maintains that a heretical Pope is only deposable. Our disagreement over the First Opinion is whether the Pope who falls into heresy “is to be declared afterwards by a sentence of the Church to have fallen from the Pontifical dignity”. I maintain that a judgment of guilt by the Church is necessary, precisely because only the Church has the authority to judge if the man is indeed guilty of heresy and has thereby fallen from the Pontifical dignity.

So it is not a question of whether the Pope automatically loses his office (according to the First Opinion), but whether a judgment and declaration by the Church is necessary to confirm that the man has lost his office due to heresy.

And, as should be obvious, the Church can only judge a person guilty of heresy “after” he has committed the offence.

To support my position that a judgment of guilty by the Church is necessary, I have cited canon Smith, who addresses this question directly. Canon Smith discusses both opinions, and then says: “Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the church, i.e., by an ecumenical council or the College of Cardinals.”

You do not agree that “he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church”. Instead, your position is that the private judgment of individuals in the pew suffices in lieu of a public judgment by the proper authorities. And you further maintain that the individuals in the pew should be permitted to publicly declare their opinion as a fact, and seek to persuade others to embrace their position. You have yet to produce a single authoritative source that contradicts Canon Smith, nor have you produced one that supports your position.

The only citation you provided was from Cum ex Apostolatus, which says that a layman is permitted to withdraw from obedience from a Pope who has deviated from the Faith. I agree with that, as I explained earlier. What I disagree with is that the individual has the authority to judge that the man has lost his office, since, as St. Thomas teaches, a public judgment is the domain of public authorities, and consequently “it is unjust if a man compels another to submit to a judgment that is pronounced by other than the public authority”.

Since you have been a Sedevacantist “for 25 years”, and present yourself as somewhat of an expert on these matters, you should be able to produce many authoritative quotes to support your position. Of course, you would only be able to do so if your theory was supported by Church approved theologians. So far you have produced none, which should alert you to the fact that your theory is erroneous.

I will end by asking you to produce a single teaching of a Church approved theologian who maintains that a layman in the pew is permitted to judge that a man elected Pope, and recognized by virtually the entire world as Pope, is guilty of heresy, and is therefore not the true Pope; and that this layman is then permitted to attempt to persuade other to accept his position. If you’ve been unable to find a single quote in your 25 years of Sedevacantism to support this theory of yours (aside from the one I already addressed from Cum Ex Apostolatus), please explain why.

Lastly, I would also ask you to explain how your position can be reconciled with the citation I provided earlier from the Fourth Council of Constantinople, which excommunicates laymen or monks who withdraw from communion from their Patriarch before the matter has been judged by a synod.

Quote:
The Fourth Council of Constantinople: “As divine scripture clearly proclaims, Do not find fault before you investigate, and understand first and then find fault, and does our law judge a person without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does? Consequently this holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful enquiry and judgment in synod, even if he alleges that he knows of some crime perpetrated by his patriarch, and he must not refuse to include his patriarch's name during the divine mysteries or offices. … If anyone shall be found defying this holy synod, he is to be debarred from all priestly functions and status if he is a bishop or cleric; if a monk or lay person, he must be excluded from all communion and meetings of the church until he is converted by repentance and reconciled”. (Canon # 10) http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum08.htm


Since you have separated yourself from communion with the one recognized by virtually the entire world as Pope before “a careful enquiry and judgment in synod”, according to the teaching of this Council you are have committed an offense that carries the grave penalty of excommunication... and you didn’t stop there. You have gone further by attempting to persuade others to embrace your position and thereby commit the same offense, which threatens the loss of their eternal souls if they do not repent. This is the height of irresponsible rashness!


Sun May 04, 2014 3:46 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
RJS wrote:
Lastly, I would also ask you to explain how your position can be reconciled with the citation I provided earlier from the Fourth Council of Constantinople, which excommunicates laymen or monks who withdraw from communion from their Patriarch before the matter has been judged by a synod.

Quote:
The Fourth Council of Constantinople: “As divine scripture clearly proclaims, Do not find fault before you investigate, and understand first and then find fault, and does our law judge a person without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does? Consequently this holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful enquiry and judgment in synod, even if he alleges that he knows of some crime perpetrated by his patriarch, and he must not refuse to include his patriarch's name during the divine mysteries or offices. … If anyone shall be found defying this holy synod, he is to be debarred from all priestly functions and status if he is a bishop or cleric; if a monk or lay person, he must be excluded from all communion and meetings of the church until he is converted by repentance and reconciled”. (Canon # 10) http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum08.htm


Since you have separated yourself from communion with the one recognized by virtually the entire world as Pope before “a careful enquiry and judgment in synod”, according to the teaching of this Council you are have committed an offense that carries the grave penalty of excommunication... and you didn’t stop there. You have gone further by attempting to persuade others to embrace your position and thereby commit the same offense, which threatens the loss of their eternal souls if they do not repent. This is the height of irresponsible rashness!


Well, leaving aside the fact that there are ellipsis in the quote (sorry, I couldn´t help it! :D ) you have to prove this canon is referring to heresy and not to other crime (as I believe it means). That is, no one may separate from his Patriarch (btw, this means that you don´t need a judgment for a crime of a Bishop?) until he be judged and eventually deposed. The case of heresy is different since by it the person put himself out of the Church "by its very nature" as Pius XII says, and therefore he loses all the offices he has.

This is perfectly sound and I´m sure everybody agrees with that.

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Sun May 04, 2014 5:02 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
RJS wrote:
My only request is that you support your position with authoritative sources, as I myself will do for mine.


Something must be wrong with my computer because I cannot believe I see what the screen says. Does John Lane ever fail to support his position with authoritative sources? No. I didn't think so.


Sun May 04, 2014 8:12 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
RJS wrote:
Question: Why did I not include the word “afterwards” when I quoted Caisson?

Answer: Because that is not a point of dispute. We both agree that, according to the First Opinion (that of Bellarmine), an heretical Pope automatically loses his office. This is opposed to the Second Opinion which maintains that a heretical Pope is only deposable. Our disagreement over the First Opinion is whether the Pope who falls into heresy “is to be declared afterwards by a sentence of the Church to have fallen from the Pontifical dignity”. I maintain that a judgment of guilt by the Church is necessary, precisely because only the Church has the authority to judge if the man is indeed guilty of heresy and has thereby fallen from the Pontifical dignity.


RJS, your position is ambiguous. You say that a judgement is "necessary" but you do not say in what sense, metaphysically, morally, practically? If he's not pope, then we are to pretend that he is? He might not be pope, but we must treat him in the external forum as if he is? Do we accept solemn definitions with divine and catholic faith from a man whom we are convinced is not pope, because even though it is "afterwards" (i.e. after he fell from the pontificate) the Church has not yet issued the declaratory sentence that Craisson says it should? Did you read Wernz-Vidal? "Although a declaratory sentence of the crime which is not to be rejected in so far as it is merely declaratory would be such that the heretical Pope would not be judged, but would rather be shown to have been judged." How do you explain their comment on the possibility of a declaratory sentence if your interpretation of Smith and Craisson is correct?

Further, you then appear to change subject by bringing in the word "authority" (which is not in Craisson and is not necessarily implied by his statement). You say, "precisely because only the Church has the authority to judge if the man is indeed guilty of heresy..." What essential factor does "authority" contribute to the matter of making secure judgements? If you don't know, say so. If you think you do know, put forward your sources.

Anyway, please sort out what you actually mean, then state it, so I can reply. I still don't know whether you think we are naughty for saying he's not pope, or actually mistaken that he isn't pope. (Nor do I know whether you realise that in the case of Francis particularly, the entire problem (from your perspective) is much more obviously one of whether he ever obtained the papacy rather that whether anybody can say that he has fallen from it.)

RJS wrote:
And, as should be obvious, the Church can only judge a person guilty of heresy “after” he has committed the offence.


No, no, no and a thousand times no! This is a complete misapprehension of the problem. Obviously a judgement of fact only occurs after the fact. That is not why that word "afterwards" is there. It's there because "the Church" cannot judge the pope. Only a superior can judge, and the pope has no superior, period. He is expressing Bellarmine's theology, as opposed to Cajetan's. Cajetan's comes next (the second opinion). If you read Azor (Craisson's chief source), he actually goes on to mention the principle expressed by Innocent III in his sermon, which in turn is a reflection of the canon law, Si papa, which says that a pope who disappears into heresy can be judged and punished by the Church. And Azor and other Cajetan school thinkers thought that this approach sufficed to escape from the problem that "nobody can judge the pope."

Now, at the time all of these men wrote, it was arguable that this interpretation was orthodox. Since the Vatican Council, however, it's heretical. That is obviously why when touching this question of a public judgement, the post-Vatican Council writers Wernz and Vidal are so delicate and careful to express themselves (such a carefully qualified as "merely declaratory" judgement is "not to be rejected") so as not to suggest for a moment that anybody can judge the pope.

Now Bellarmine argues against Cajetan precisely that only a superior can judge, so that if somebody judges a pope he is intrinsically his superior, which is impossible. For this reason any legal judgement can only be after the fact is already known with certitude.

So, now you know why that word "afterwards" is there, do you agree that when quoting Craisson you must always include it in order to quote him accurately?

RJS wrote:
You do not agree that “he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church”. Instead, your position is that the private judgment of individuals in the pew suffices in lieu of a public judgment by the proper authorities.


No, I don't equate my judgement with that of the Church at all. That's nonsense. I say merely what is obvious, which is that my judgement and that of, say, a cardinal in his chambers, prior to any trial or legal procedure aimed at issuing the declaratory sentence we are discussing, is essentially of the same nature - that is, it is a private judgement binding upon my conscious and not that of others. That is why it's different from a judgement by authority. There is no other relevant difference. More importantly, the cardinal proceeding to judgement of the ex-pope relies on that intrinsically identical kind of judgement in order to be safe from heresy is his proceeding. That is, if the man he is about to judge is still pope, then the cardinal himself is acting unlawfully and even heretically!

RJS wrote:
And you further maintain that the individuals in the pew should be permitted to publicly declare their opinion as a fact, and seek to persuade others to embrace their position.

The notion that one must always keep one's judgements secret is not one you'll find in the books, but if and when you do, please be sure to tell us about it. In the mean time, please stop making up your own law and morals then challenging us to prove you wrong.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon May 05, 2014 1:28 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:13 am
Posts: 194
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
TKGS wrote:
RJS wrote:
My only request is that you support your position with authoritative sources, as I myself will do for mine.


Something must be wrong with my computer because I cannot believe I see what the screen says. Does John Lane ever fail to support his position with authoritative sources? No. I didn't think so.


I had to take a "take two" myself when I read this request. If anything, the most common complaint I have read about John Lane is that he insists that all supply sources for their opinions.

_________________
On the last day, when the general examination takes place, there will be no question at all on the text of Aristotle, the aphorisms of Hippocrates, or the paragraphs of Justinian. Charity will be the whole syllabus.

- St. Robert Bellarmine


Mon May 05, 2014 11:14 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
Dear RJS,

I invite you to revisit this post, which you answered with an irrelevancy (i.e. a quote from Bellarmine about an unrelated question - whether the laity can replace a heretical bishop): viewtopic.php?p=14022#p14022

I also invite you to read the protestation translated by Bishop Sanborn at the beginning of this article: http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/ ... 20Have.pdf - with particular emphasis on the reaction of the faithful to Nestorius, shouting "An Emperor we have, but no bishop."

But please don't reply to any of this until you have stated with more clarity what your actual thesis is, because as I have pointed out, what you have said so far is totally unclear.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon May 05, 2014 11:24 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
Katie wrote:
TKGS wrote:
RJS wrote:
My only request is that you support your position with authoritative sources, as I myself will do for mine.


Something must be wrong with my computer because I cannot believe I see what the screen says. Does John Lane ever fail to support his position with authoritative sources? No. I didn't think so.


I had to take a "take two" myself when I read this request. If anything, the most common complaint I have read about John Lane is that he insists that all supply sources for their opinions.


Dear Katie and TKGS,

It's a debating tactic. What RJS does is he characterises my position a certain way, with three or four propositions all combined (he has done this several times), then demands that I find a quote from an authority which proves his misrepresentation of my position. When I reply by picking apart his mischaracterisation of my views, he protests that I have no authorities for my opinions. It's like a game, but I think he is too obsessed by his own outlook even to realise what he is doing - except that he feels that he wins points this way.

I had forgotten how many times we've been around the mulberry bush with him before, but today I re-read the four or so debate threads involving him and reminded myself of how hopeless this all is!

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon May 05, 2014 12:18 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:25 am
Posts: 98
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
Quote:
RJS Question: Why did I not include the word “afterwards” when I quoted Caisson?
Answer: Because that is not a point of dispute. We both agree that, according to the First Opinion (that of Bellarmine), an heretical Pope automatically loses his office. This is opposed to the Second Opinion which maintains that a heretical Pope is only deposable. Our disagreement over the First Opinion is whether the Pope who falls into heresy “is to be declared afterwards by a sentence of the Church to have fallen from the Pontifical dignity”. I maintain that a judgment of guilt by the Church is necessary, precisely because only the Church has the authority to judge if the man is indeed guilty of heresy and has thereby fallen from the Pontifical dignity.


Quote:
John Lane: RJS, your position is ambiguous. You say that a judgement is "necessary" but you do not say in what sense, metaphysically, morally, practically? If he's not pope, then we are to pretend that he is? He might not be pope, but we must treat him in the external forum as if he is? Do we accept solemn definitions with divine and catholic faith from a man whom we are convinced is not pope, because even though it is "afterwards" (i.e. after he fell from the pontificate) the Church has not yet issued the declaratory sentence that Craisson says it should?


It is necessary on the juridical level. I’ll explain this further in my reply the Point #2 from your earlier post.

Quote:
RJS: And, as should be obvious, the Church can only judge a person guilty of heresy “after” he has committed the offence.


Quote:
John Lane: No, no, no and a thousand times no! This is a complete misapprehension of the problem. Obviously a judgement of fact only occurs after the fact. That is not why that word "afterwards" is there. It's there because "the Church" cannot judge the pope. Only a superior can judge, and the pope has no superior, period.


There is no misapprehension of the problem on my end. I was referring to the cause (heresy); you were referring to the effect (loss of office). I understand completely that the reason the First Opinion maintains that the heretical Pope loses his office automatically is because the Pope has no superior on earth. According to Opinion One, the judgment of guilt only confirms that he fell into heresy and thereby ceased to by Pope. My point was that the Church judges the cause (which obviously happened in the past), in order to confirm the effect (that the man lost his office). The question is: who has the authority to judge the cause that produced the effect? The citations from Smith and Caisson both teach that the Church must make the judgment.

On a related point, this gets to the heart of the difference between the two opinions. Opinion 1 maintains that the Pope cannot be judged. Therefore, when the man is judge guilty of heresy, it is confirmed that he lost the office immediately upon lapsing into heresy. The Church merely judges the cause that produced the effect. And since the effect had already taken place, they were not judging a Pope, but a former pope. Opinion 2 maintains that a Pope who falls into heresy can be judged and deposed.

But on the practical level, when viewed from the perspective of the taught Church (that’s us), both opinions are virtually identical. From our perspective, the Pope (opinion 2), or “Pope” (Opinion 1) is judged guilty of heresy and declared (or confirmed) to have lost his office. Either way, the cause must be judged by the Church.

Quote:
RJS: You do not agree that “he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church”. Instead, your position is that the private judgment of individuals in the pew suffices in lieu of a public judgment by the proper authorities.


Quote:
John: No, I don't equate my judgement with that of the Church at all. That's nonsense. I say merely what is obvious, which is that my judgement and that of, say, a cardinal in his chambers, prior to any trial or legal procedure aimed at issuing the declaratory sentence we are discussing, is essentially of the same nature - that is, it is a private judgement binding upon my conscious and not that of others. That is why it's different from a judgement by authority. … The notion that one must always keep one's judgements secret is not one you'll find in the books...


I never implied that one has to keep their judgment to themselves. Of course, prudence dictates when and how an opinion is expressed, and it is certainly possible to sin by imprudence in this matter, but I never claimed that a person is required to keep their opinion to themselves. If you merely said that, in your opinion, the Pope is a heretic, and that you believe the Church will eventually conclude the same and declare these men lost their office, I wouldn’t argue with you. You are entitled to your opinion.

Where we disagree is that you go further and declare as a fact that these men have not been Popes, and then you seek to persuade others to follow you in this matter. I believe that is going way too far, which is why I have asked you to provide a single quote from a theologian confirming that what you are doing is justified. And if you can’t you need to explain why. We have seen an authority – a Church approved canonists - teach the heretical Pope “must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the church”. The book containing this quote was reviewed by Rome. Although 5 or 6 errors were found in the original version of the book (which were corrected in later editions), this teaching was not one of them, which is why it remained in all subsequent editions.

What I am still waiting for is an authoritative source saying that, absent a judgment of guilt, a layman in the pew has the authority to publicly state that a man recognized by virtually the entire world as Pope, is, in fact, a heretic and not a true Pope; and further, that the layman is then permitted to attempt to persuade others to follow him in his opinion. If you can't find one, all you have to do is acknowledge that, in your 25 years of studying this issue, you have never found any theologian that confirms your position and actions.

You asked if I disagree with your position, or if I only consider it naughty. I disagree that you have the authority to declare your opinion as a fact and seek to persuade others to embrace it, but I don’t rule out the possibility that the Church in the future will declare these men to have been heretics and thereby to have lost their office. I would give that about a 25% likelihood. I have several opinions of my own on how the Church could deal with these men, but I’ll leave it to the Church to sort it out since I’m just a layman in the pew.


Mon May 05, 2014 2:17 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
RJS wrote:
It is necessary on the juridical level.


That's just as vague, shedding little light on your position. "On the juridical level" is undefined, and has no obvious meaning, so you'll need to define it. And "necessary" is still not given any real meaning either. Is there a law, so that when you say that something is necessary, you mean that to act otherwise is to breach the law? If so, what is this law, where is it written, why can you not cite it? If you mean necessary in some other sense, say what it is and then we'll see if you can support that, whatever it is.

I have pointed out the distinction, dealt with in the Code, between the loss of office and the procedure for filling it again. You ignored that, leading any realistic person to think that you were not referring to that. So what are you referring to? You fail to say.

Quote:
RJS: And, as should be obvious, the Church can only judge a person guilty of heresy “after” he has committed the offence.


Quote:
John Lane: No, no, no and a thousand times no! This is a complete misapprehension of the problem. Obviously a judgement of fact only occurs after the fact. That is not why that word "afterwards" is there. It's there because "the Church" cannot judge the pope. Only a superior can judge, and the pope has no superior, period.


RJS wrote:
There is no misapprehension of the problem on my end. I was referring to the cause (heresy); you were referring to the effect (loss of office). I understand completely that the reason the First Opinion maintains that the heretical Pope loses his office automatically is because the Pope has no superior on earth. According to Opinion One, the judgment of guilt only confirms that he fell into heresy and thereby ceased to by Pope. My point was that the Church judges the cause (which obviously happened in the past), in order to confirm the effect (that the man lost his office). The question is: who has the authority to judge the cause that produced the effect? The citations from Smith and Caisson both teach that the Church must make the judgment.


No, the quotes don't say that. If they did, we'd not be arguing. All that they say is that after the man falls into heresy and out of the Church (the cause) he loses his office automatically (the effect) and that AFTERWARDS the Church is to issue a declaratory judgement (not a condemnatory judgement). The texts do not say why this is to happen. You are guessing. You have nothing in the text to support your guess, nor do you have another text to prove your view. You are guessing. And I know enough about this to see that your guess is wildly erroneous. We'll have a look at the canons soon, just to drive this particular point home.

And I pointed out some dozen or two posts ago the distinction between a declaration and a condemnation and you ignored that too. You're a hard man to educate!

Now, EVERY judgement, condemnatory, declaratory, whatever, occurs after the fact of the crime. So that is not why the text of Craisson adds the word "afterwards." It's redundant if that's all that he means. So it means something else. It means what Wernz-Vidal say, which is that given this is the Bellarmine opinion being discussed, no judgement but a declaratory one after the loss of office (i.e. not just after the heresy) can occur. In other words, the word "afterwards" signifies an intrinsic and essential element in the opinion being summarised by Craisson. (The fact that you don't get this, even after it is explained, totally mystifies me.) So when you quote Craisson, you have to include the word "afterwards" or you are misrepresenting him. That is indisputable, and frankly, I think you sense that this is the case and that's why you instinctively felt the need to omit the word and you are resisting my insistence that you put it back.

RJS wrote:
But on the practical level, when viewed from the perspective of the taught Church (that’s us), both opinions are virtually identical. From our perspective, the Pope (opinion 2), or “Pope” (Opinion 1) is judged guilty of heresy and declared (or confirmed) to have lost his office. Either way, the cause must be judged by the Church.


You seem to imagine that you just said something meaningful with that paragraph. You have not, because you refuse to define your terms. "Either way, the cause must be judged by the Church," you write. But why? What difference does it make? You don't say. Why not?

RJS wrote:
I never implied that one has to keep their judgment to themselves. Of course, prudence dictates when and how an opinion is expressed, and it is certainly possible to sin by imprudence in this matter, but I never claimed that a person is required to keep their opinion to themselves. If you merely said that, in your opinion, the Pope is a heretic, and that you believe the Church will eventually conclude the same and declare these men lost their office, I wouldn’t argue with you. You are entitled to your opinion.


I know, and my opinion is that he isn't the pope, and that one day the Church will issue a declaratory judgement confirming this. In the mean time he isn't pope. If he is, then the Church will never issue a declaratory judgement confirming that he wasn't. You will at some point have to say what you mean, and then it will be apparent that you are either admitting that we are entitled to our position, or you will be asserting that some middle ground exists which metaphysically cannot exist - that is, he is and is not the pope at the same time.

RJS wrote:
What I am still waiting for is an authoritative source saying that, absent a judgment of guilt, a layman in the pew has the authority to publicly state that a man recognized by virtually the entire world as Pope, is, in fact, a heretic and not a true Pope; and further, that the layman is then permitted to attempt to persuade others to follow him in his opinion. If you can't find one, all you have to do is acknowledge that, in your 25 years of studying this issue, you have never found any theologian that confirms your position and actions.


No, I need no such authority for that complex series of propositions, but I do happen to have an authority which explicitly and implicitly authorises all of that - Cum ex apostolatus. It states that a heretic claiming an office is automatically and without any intervention by the Church deposed, and that all, including the laity, can treat him as a warlock, heathen, publican, etc. The principle is the same one expressed by St. Paul, who tells us that even an angel from heaven must be "anathema" to us (i.e. judge him and reject him as an excommunicate) if he preaches a false gospel. But you reject this doctrine and imagine a distinction in Cum ex apostolatus which is not there. You say that it authorises the bad treatment of the heretic claimant, but not the judgement that he doesn't have the office. How you can read it that way when it first says he doesn't have the office, and then says we can treat him as one who doesn't have the office, and is our enemy, is mystifying. One rests absolutely upon the other. It is because he doesn't have the office that we are entitled to treat him as anathema.

RJS wrote:
You asked if I disagree with your position, or if I only consider it naughty. I disagree that you have the authority to declare your opinion as a fact and seek to persuade others to embrace it...


More vagueness. Could you please answer the question? Are we breaching some law (i.e. we are "naughty") or is our judgement that he isn't pope inaccurate? You insist on using ambiguous phrases which escape any proper analysis. What does it mean to say we don't have the "authority" to do something? We don't claim any authority, which if it means anything means the right to submission to our instructions, judgements, etc. by some class of other people. Do you mean we don't have the right? If so, tell us what law we are breaching.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon May 05, 2014 3:43 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:25 am
Posts: 98
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
Quote:
John Lane: No, the quotes don't say that. If they did, we'd not be arguing. All that they say is that after the man falls into heresy and out of the Church (the cause) he loses his office automatically (the effect) and that AFTERWARDS the Church is to issue a declaratory judgement (not a condemnatory judgement). The texts do not say why this is to happen. You are guessing. You have nothing in the text to support your guess, nor do you have another text to prove your view.


A judgment of guilt has to come before a declaration. If a Pope pronounces a judgment against himself, a judgment of guilt by the Church becomes unnecessary. I agree that in such a case, a declaration alone from the Church would suffice. How would a Pope pronounce sentence against himself? The theologians discuss this scenario, and it is not what is not what has taken place in our day. They teach that a Pope would essentially pronounce sentence upon himself if he remaining obstinate after being formally warned by the proper authorities, which, according to Ballerini, would be similar to an abdication of the Pontificate.

Quote:
Ballerini: “For the person, who admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or public dogma - not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity - this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such form that now no declaration or sentence of any one whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church. (…) Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, maintained himself hardened in heresy and openly turned himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him. Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made known to all the Church, making clear that by his own will be had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church, and that in a certain way he had abdicated the Pontificate, which no one holds or can hold if he does not belong to the Church”.


If this was this was the situation, I agree that a declaration would suffice. But to date, none of the post-Vatican II Popes have been publicly warned, and therefore their pertinacity has not been publicly manifest. They are suspect of heresy in the external forum (and may well be guilty of heresy in the internal forum), but none has “pronounced a sentence against himself” by remaining obstinate after receiving a public warned.

Canon 2315 explains that a cleric who is suspect of heresy must be warned, and is only subject to the penalties of a heretic if he remains obstinate for six months.

Quote:
From De Silveira’s article: “Canon 2315 affirms that ‘the suspect of heresy who, once he has been admonished, does not remove the cause of the suspicion is to be prohibited from legitimate actions and, if he be a cleric, when the warning has been once repeated in vain, he will be suspended a divinis; and if the suspect of heresy does not amend himself in the space of six full months, starting from the moment when he incurred the penalty, he will be considered as a heretic, subject to the penalties of heretics’. Let us observe from this how patient and prudent the Church is in respect of such people. In addition to the warning which must be reiterated in the case of a cleric, she gives six months for the retraction or for ultimate clarifications before imposing the penalties proper to heretics. These penalties are not automatic; rather, they must be imposed by the bishop who may ultimately have reasons for not putting them into effect”.


Patient and prudent indeed. If justice requires that a cleric be warned, how much more necessary is it for a pope who is suspect of heresy to be given a similar warning before being declared a heretic by the Church?

I have a question for you: If a Pope fell into heresy, but was not declared to have lost his office by the Church, what would be the status of the acts of his Pontificate?


Last edited by RJS on Mon May 05, 2014 8:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Mon May 05, 2014 6:40 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
In my very carefully considered opinion, the Concilliar Church, Novus Ordo, VCII Church, whatever you want to call that "thing" is not now, never has been, and never will be the True Catholic Church. It is an abomination before God and man. It is a satanic masquerade of the True Church.

So, I have a request and a question for those discussing all these issues.

1) To Robert: Please prove to me that that abomination I mention above IS the True Catholic Church, preferably in as few words as possible.

2) To John: IS that abomination I mention above, in your opinion, the True Catholic Church?

I await your answers.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Mon May 05, 2014 6:45 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 284
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
The following is from A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law by Rev. P. Chas. Augustine O.S.B., D.D. :


Can. 2315

Suspectus de haeresi, qui monitus causam suspicionis non removeat, actibus legitimis prohibeatur, et clericus praeterea, repetita inutiliter monitione, suspendatur a divinis; quod si intra sex menses a contracta poena completes suspectus de haeresi sese non emendaverit, habeatur tanquam haereticus, haereticorum poenis obnoxius.

Suspicion, in the psychological sense, is doubt, coupled with a positive leaning to one side; in our case, towards a heretical doctrine. In law it may be expressed by presumption or circumstantial evidence. It is, therefore, a judgment formed about some one without sufficient evidence on the ground of certain indicia.

Three kinds of suspicion are generally distinguished: light, vehement, and violent. Light suspicion admits of no conclusion, because it is based on absolutely insufficient indicia. Vehement suspicion rests on effective signs and conclusions. Violent suspicion amounts to morally certain proof. 1 The Decretals, 2 from which the notion "suspicion of heresy" is taken, have in view vehement suspicion, and no doubt this is here to be understood. Light suspicion often amounts to no more than rash judgment, whilst violent suspicion is to be considered as a positive proof, and therefore rather falls under can. 2314.

Can. 2314

i. Omnes a Christiana fide apostatae et omnes et singuli haeretici aut schismatici: i. Incurrunt ipso facto excomrnunicationem ; 2. Nisi moniti resipuerint, priventur beneficio, dignitate, pensione, officio aliove munere, si quod in Ecclesia habeant, infames declarentur, et clerici, iterata monitione, deponantur;276 PENALTIES 3. Si sectae acatholicae nomen dederint vel publice adhaeserint, ipso facto infames sunt et, firmo praescripto can 188, n. 4, clerici, monitione incassum praemissa, degradentur.

2. Absolutio ab excommunicatione de qua In i, in foro conscientiae impertienda, est special! modo Sedi Apostolicae reservata. Si tamen delictum apostasiae, haeresis vel schismatis ad forum cxternum Ordinarii loci quovis modo deductum fuerit, etiam per voluntariam confessionem, idem Ordinarius, non vero Vicarius Generalis sine mandato speciali, resipiscentem, praevia abiuratione iuridice peracta aliisque servatis de iure servandis, sua auctoritate ordinaria in foro exteriore absolvere potest; ita vero absolutus, potest deinde a peccato absolvi a quolibet confessario in foro conscientiae. Abiuratio vero habetur iuridice peracta cum fit coram ipso Ordinario loci vel eius delegate et saltern duobus testibus.

i. All apostates from the Christian faith and all heretics and schismatics :

i. Incur excommunication ipso facto, and 2. Unless they repent, shall be deprived of any benefice, dignity, pension or other charge which they may hold in the Church, and be declared infamous; clerics, after repeated warning, shall be deposed; 3. If apostates, heretics or schismatics have joined a non-Catholic sect, or publicly professed themselves members thereof, they are by this very fact (ipso facto) infamous; clerics, after having been warned without result, must be degraded and their offices thereby become vacant.i)

What the terms apostates, heretics, schismatics mean, has been explained in can. 1325, 2. All three presuppose valid baptism. By apostates are here understood all who have gone astray from the Christian faith (devii a fide). 2 For the rest it matters not whether the apostate has espoused Paganism, Judaism, Mohammedanism, or atheism, or whether he is a mere unbeliever. Therefore also Freethinkers must be included in the term, because they reject all authority in matters of faith.

3 Concerning Spiritists there is room for doubt. For although it is quite evident that Spiritism as a sect is heretical, 4 or rather tantamount to apostasy, because it retains hardly anything specifically Christian, yet it is possible, nay probable, that some of its followers may persuade themselves that they are Catholics, and can not, therefore, be classified among those mentioned in can. 2205, 3- The benefit of doubt may be applied to them (can. 209).

Heretics, according to can. 1325, 2, are such as deny obstinately one or more articles of faith. It is not necessary to join a non-Catholic sect in order to be a heretic in the sense of i, n. i.

Footnotes:

2 Apost. Sedis, I, i: "Omnes a art. i: "a fide Christiana recessio"; Christiana fide apostatas, et omnes Paul III, "Cum ex apostolatus," Feb. ac singulos haereticos, quocumque 15, 1559, 2. nomine censeantur, et cuiuscumque 3 Thus also Avanzini, De Consectae existant, eisque credcntes, stitutione Apostolicae Sedis, ed. 6, eorumque receptores, fautores ac 1883, p. 4; Ballerini-PaJmieri, Opus generaliter quoslibet illorum de- Theol. Morale, Vol. VII, n. 422, fensores." I, 3: "Schismaticos, p. 219 (ed. 2). ct eos, qui a Romani Pontificis pro 4 S. O., July 28, 1847; Aug. 4, tempore existentis obedientia per- 1856 (Coll. P. F., nn. 1018, 1128); tinaciter se subtrahunt, vel re- Pennacchi, Commentaria in Const, cedunt." S. Thorn., II-II, q. 12, Ap. Sedis, 1883, Vol. I. p. 83.



Please note that Cum Ex Apostolatus is referenced above.


Mon May 05, 2014 11:05 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
RJS wrote:
[To] date, none of the post-Vatican II Popes have been publicly warned, and therefore their pertinacity has not been publicly manifest.


Just what in the world was Archbishop Lefebvre saying all those years? Surely, he "publicly warned" both Montini and Wojtyla. And, frankly, all of the rest of them (with the possible exception of Luciani) have been "publicly warned" by many Catholics throughout the world. Mr. Lane has "publicly warned" several of these men that they were heretics on an internet website at least. I've even read that the "popes" get letters every year about their various heresies and apostasies and that they are told about them.

These men have known that many traditional Catholics regard them has manifest and pertinacious heretics and/or apostates and they know why. Furthermore, any contention that they simply didn't realize that there is a First Commandment of God which forbids worshiping false gods is simply ludicrous.

What, pray tell, would you consider a proper "public warning" that would satisfy your criteria?


Mon May 05, 2014 11:24 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
TKGS, good point. You might recall that we have covered all this before with RJS - see this post for example (Feb. 2013): viewtopic.php?p=14004#p14004

RJS, you ignored my questions again. Please define your terms. I remind you:

John Lane wrote:
"On the juridical level" is undefined, and has no obvious meaning, so you'll need to define it. And "necessary" is still not given any real meaning either. Is there a law, so that when you say that something is necessary, you mean that to act otherwise is to breach the law? If so, what is this law, where is it written, why can you not cite it? If you mean necessary in some other sense, say what it is and then we'll see if you can support that, whatever it is.


And:

John Lane wrote:
RJS wrote:
But on the practical level, when viewed from the perspective of the taught Church (that’s us), both opinions are virtually identical. From our perspective, the Pope (opinion 2), or “Pope” (Opinion 1) is judged guilty of heresy and declared (or confirmed) to have lost his office. Either way, the cause must be judged by the Church.


You seem to imagine that you just said something meaningful with that paragraph. You have not, because you refuse to define your terms. "Either way, the cause must be judged by the Church," you write. But why? What difference does it make? You don't say. Why not?


And:

John Lane wrote:
More vagueness. Could you please answer the question? Are we breaching some law (i.e. we are "naughty") or is our judgement that he isn't pope inaccurate? You insist on using ambiguous phrases which escape any proper analysis. What does it mean to say we don't have the "authority" to do something? We don't claim any authority, which if it means anything means the right to submission to our instructions, judgements, etc. by some class of other people. Do you mean we don't have the right? If so, tell us what law we are breaching.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue May 06, 2014 12:05 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
RJS wrote:
Canon 2315 explains that a cleric who is suspect of heresy must be warned, and is only subject to the penalties of a heretic if he remains obstinate for six months.

Quote:
From De Silveira’s article: “Canon 2315 affirms that ‘the suspect of heresy who, once he has been admonished, does not remove the cause of the suspicion is to be prohibited from legitimate actions and, if he be a cleric, when the warning has been once repeated in vain, he will be suspended a divinis; and if the suspect of heresy does not amend himself in the space of six full months, starting from the moment when he incurred the penalty, he will be considered as a heretic, subject to the penalties of heretics’. Let us observe from this how patient and prudent the Church is in respect of such people. In addition to the warning which must be reiterated in the case of a cleric, she gives six months for the retraction or for ultimate clarifications before imposing the penalties proper to heretics. These penalties are not automatic; rather, they must be imposed by the bishop who may ultimately have reasons for not putting them into effect”.


Patient and prudent indeed. If justice requires that a cleric be warned, how much more necessary is it for a pope who is suspect of heresy to be given a similar warning before being declared a heretic by the Church?

I have a question for you: If a Pope fell into heresy, but was not declared to have lost his office by the Church, what would be the status of the acts of his Pontificate?


RJS, you are all at sea. These provisions apply only to a specific, defined, concept in law, actually a censure - suspicion of heresy. Da Silveira explains it because as he says, in many cases an action (not a word) automatically attracts this censure.

The same writer notes, however, that penalties which require previous warnings are ferendae sententiae penalties. Latae sententiae penalties do not require warnings. A manifest heretic incurs excommunication without necessarily being warned - the penalty is automatic.

You appear to have missed what da Silveira wrote, in the same essay from which you are quoting:
da Silveira wrote:
[T]he Code of Canon Law ... establishes in canon 2233 n.2 the precise manner in which the accused must be rebuked and warned before any censure may be imposed.

This objection does not stand up, because this canon applies only to "ferendae sententiae" censures, ie. those which are inflicted by the superior or by the ecclesiastical judge. When the censure is "latae sententiae", that is to say when the accused incurs it automatically by the fact of having committed a certain crime, the warning is not necessary. In this case, as a fine old legal maxim has it, "Lex interpellat pro homine", the law calls to account, instead of the man (cf. Palazzini, col. 1298).

The excommunication which falls on the heretic is "latae sententiae" (Canon 2314 n.l). It becomes clear, as a consequence of this, that the Code of Canon Law has also accepted the principle that a warning is not always necessary for pertinacity to be revealed.


Of course, none of this touches the matter we are discussing anyway, which is that loss of office which follows from the loss of membership in the Church. This is a tacit resignation, it is not penal, it is not dealt with in the penal section of the Code, and none of these technical points apply to it. It's essentially a question of theology, not canon law. The human law only re-states what is really a point of divine law, operating with full force and effect whether the Church explicitly incorporates it in her canons or not. As Bellarmine says, "those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms."

Please answer my questions. It's very hard to answer a charge when one cannot work out what the charge is!

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue May 06, 2014 12:24 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 284
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
John Lane wrote:
Of course, none of this touches the matter we are discussing anyway, which is that loss of office which follows from the loss of membership in the Church. This is a tacit resignation, it is not penal, it is not dealt with in the penal section of the Code, and none of these technical points apply to it. It's essentially a question of theology, not canon law. The human law only re-states what is really a point of divine law, operating with full force and effect whether the Church explicitly incorporates it in her canons or not. As Bellarmine says, "those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms."

Please answer my questions. It's very hard to answer a charge when one cannot work out what the charge is!


Perfect.... RJS, you really need to understand this point. Read then reread it!


Tue May 06, 2014 11:27 am
Profile

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:25 am
Posts: 98
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
TKGS wrote:
What, pray tell, would you consider a proper "public warning" that would satisfy your criteria?


TKGS,

What I consider sufficient is not important. Fortunately, we have an authority who discusses this very point. As quoted previously, Ballerinin explains that "such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod". Here's the entire sentence.

Quote:
Ballerini: Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, maintained himself hardened in heresy and openly turned himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul.


On a related point, we have another authority who explains who would be able to pass a sentence again a heretical Pope for his crime. This is what Suarez wrote:

Quote:
Suarez: “I affirm: if he were a heretic and incorrigible, the Pope would cease to be Pope just when a sentence was passed against him for his crime, by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church. This is the common opinion among the doctors (…) In the first place, who ought to pronounce such a sentence? Some say that it would be the Cardinals; and the Church would be able undoubtedly to attribute to them this faculty, above all if it were thus established by the consent or determination of the Supreme Pontiffs, as was done in regard to the election. But up to today we do not read in any place that such a judgment has been confided to them. For this reason, one must affirm that, as such, it pertains to all the Bishops of the Church, for, being the ordinary pastors and the pillars of the Church, one must consider that such a case concerns them. And since by divine law there is no greater reason to affirm that the matter is of more interest to these bishops than to those, and since by human law nothing has been established in the matter, one must necessarily sustain that the case refers to all, and even to the general council. That is the common opinion among the doctors”.


So, according to these authorities, the warning could come from the "Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, and the sentence would be passed by the all the Bishops.

I'll respond to the other posts later this afternoon, including John's who said a warning is not always necessary.


Tue May 06, 2014 1:51 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
RJS wrote:
Patient and prudent indeed. If justice requires that a cleric be warned, how much more necessary is it for a pope who is suspect of heresy to be given a similar warning before being declared a heretic by the Church?


This is the complete reverse of the truth, surprising as it may seem to you.

Firstly, I emphasise that there is no such principle in relation to "clerics" despite your guess, based on misreading da Silveira, that there is. De Lugo's authority is great, and he tells us as a plain fact that the Holy Office itself does not deem it necessary to issue warnings before proceeding to judgement in every case.

Secondly, and more importantly, no superior can warn a pope, because he has none. A superior can, on the other hand, warn a cleric, and then impose a ferendae sententiae penalty (i.e. in cases where the heretic is not manifestly a heretic). As you should easily see, there is no parallel.

The entire basis of Bellarmine's doctrine is that a manifest heretic judges himself, declares himself to be outside the Church, stripped of membership, and thereby tacitly resigns any offices he may hitherto have held, because as Leo XIII put it, it is absurd to imagine that one who is outside can command in the Church. Bellarmine says this many times in the course of his explanation of his doctrine - e.g. "heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ," and "a manifest heretic is not a Christian," and "heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church," and "they have already been condemned by their own sentence... that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication." And so on.

So no, justice does not demand that a heretic pope be given a warning, and certainly not a warning by a superior, of which he can, ex hypothesi (i.e. assuming he is pope at all), have none. Nor can he be declared a heretic by the Church except and unless he has already ceased to be a Christian and therefore ceased to be pope. For once he has declared himself to be no Christian, he is less than any Christian, any layman, and may be "judged and punished by the Church" as Innocent III and the Decretals say.

RJS wrote:
I have a question for you: If a Pope fell into heresy, but was not declared to have lost his office by the Church, what would be the status of the acts of his Pontificate?


Well, I think that the status of his acts would be assessed on the basis of the degree of certitude, considered objectively, that his claim to the papacy had. It can easily be seen that a man whose claim was disputed by many serious and learned men, would be held to have objectively a doubtful claim. This is what Pascal II feared when the universally respected St. Bruno was accusing him of heterodoxy over investitures. He himself said that if he didn't silence St. Bruno, then St. Bruno would take away the government of the Church from him by his protestations.

On the other hand, if the case against the pope were weak, as it was with Savonarola's allegations against Alexander VI, then nobody would seriously question the acts of the pontificate.

Now, the important thing to keep in view in this is the practical effect in each case. You can actually see this is in Paul IV's mind in Cum ex apostolatus. He is legislating in such a way as to remove, to the greatest possible degree, the stability and security of the authority of any heretic who dares to claim the papacy. By rendering such a future claim insecure, he effectively wrecks its chances of practical success. In a word, Paul IV fomented revolution in advance against such a usurper. And actually, we sedevacantists are the ultimate fruit of that fomenting of rebellion by the undoubted pope, Paul IV. We read, in the early days when Paul VI was wreaking havoc on the Church, Pope Paul IV's masterful and timeless Bull, and we questioned Paul VI's claim. I don't mean myself, of course, but the early sedevacantists.

Further, you can see from the reaction amongst orthodox-minded men to these recent canonisations the same essential reality - whatever they say about the theoretical validity of Bergoglio's claim, they are rejecting his infallible authority and treating him as having less knowledge of the truth than themselves.

RJS, Suarez is wrong, refuted by Bellarmine. Further, his opinion lost adherents over the centuries and Wernz-Vidal assures us that by the twentieth century Bellarmine's was regarded as the best proved and most common doctrine. In any case, please don't answer anything else until you have answered my questions regarding your charges against sedevacantists, because as anybody can see, there's no way at this stage to know what it is you are even alleging.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue May 06, 2014 2:44 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:25 am
Posts: 98
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
Recusant wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Of course, none of this touches the matter we are discussing anyway, which is that loss of office which follows from the loss of membership in the Church. This is a tacit resignation, it is not penal, it is not dealt with in the penal section of the Code, and none of these technical points apply to it. It's essentially a question of theology, not canon law. The human law only re-states what is really a point of divine law, operating with full force and effect whether the Church explicitly incorporates it in her canons or not. As Bellarmine says, "those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms."

Please answer my questions. It's very hard to answer a charge when one cannot work out what the charge is!


Perfect.... RJS, you really need to understand this point. Read then reread it!


Recusant, a superficial reading of what Bellarmine wrote might appear to support the Sedevacantist position, but when the necessary distinctions are clarified, it doesn't.


Tue May 06, 2014 8:05 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:25 am
Posts: 98
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
John Lane wrote:
RJS wrote:
Canon 2315 explains that a cleric who is suspect of heresy must be warned, and is only subject to the penalties of a heretic if he remains obstinate for six months.

Quote:
From De Silveira’s article: “Canon 2315 affirms that ‘the suspect of heresy who, once he has been admonished, does not remove the cause of the suspicion is to be prohibited from legitimate actions and, if he be a cleric, when the warning has been once repeated in vain, he will be suspended a divinis; and if the suspect of heresy does not amend himself in the space of six full months, starting from the moment when he incurred the penalty, he will be considered as a heretic, subject to the penalties of heretics’. Let us observe from this how patient and prudent the Church is in respect of such people. In addition to the warning which must be reiterated in the case of a cleric, she gives six months for the retraction or for ultimate clarifications before imposing the penalties proper to heretics. These penalties are not automatic; rather, they must be imposed by the bishop who may ultimately have reasons for not putting them into effect”.


Patient and prudent indeed. If justice requires that a cleric be warned, how much more necessary is it for a pope who is suspect of heresy to be given a similar warning before being declared a heretic by the Church?

I have a question for you: If a Pope fell into heresy, but was not declared to have lost his office by the Church, what would be the status of the acts of his Pontificate?


RJS, you are all at sea. These provisions apply only to a specific, defined, concept in law, actually a censure - suspicion of heresy. Da Silveira explains it because as he says, in many cases an action (not a word) automatically attracts this censure.

The same writer notes, however, that penalties which require previous warnings are ferendae sententiae penalties. Latae sententiae penalties do not require warnings. A manifest heretic incurs excommunication without necessarily being warned - the penalty is automatic.

You appear to have missed what da Silveira wrote, in the same essay from which you are quoting:
da Silveira wrote:
[T]he Code of Canon Law ... establishes in canon 2233 n.2 the precise manner in which the accused must be rebuked and warned before any censure may be imposed.

This objection does not stand up, because this canon applies only to "ferendae sententiae" censures, ie. those which are inflicted by the superior or by the ecclesiastical judge. When the censure is "latae sententiae", that is to say when the accused incurs it automatically by the fact of having committed a certain crime, the warning is not necessary. In this case, as a fine old legal maxim has it, "Lex interpellat pro homine", the law calls to account, instead of the man (cf. Palazzini, col. 1298).

The excommunication which falls on the heretic is "latae sententiae" (Canon 2314 n.l). It becomes clear, as a consequence of this, that the Code of Canon Law has also accepted the principle that a warning is not always necessary for pertinacity to be revealed.


Of course, none of this touches the matter we are discussing anyway, which is that loss of office which follows from the loss of membership in the Church. This is a tacit resignation, it is not penal, it is not dealt with in the penal section of the Code, and none of these technical points apply to it. It's essentially a question of theology, not canon law. The human law only re-states what is really a point of divine law, operating with full force and effect whether the Church explicitly incorporates it in her canons or not. As Bellarmine says, "those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms."

Please answer my questions. It's very hard to answer a charge when one cannot work out what the charge is!



Where we disagree is that I don’t believe these Popes qualify as manifest heretics, since manifest heresy requires that pertinacity be manifest in the external forum. And interestingly, neither does da Silveira, who wrote the article you just cited. Since de Silveira has been quoted so often by Sedevacantist in support of the Sedevacantist position, I think it is appropriate to again quote what he had to said a few years. After quoting him in favor of your position for so many years, I’m sure you were surprised to learn that he is still alive, and I’m sure your were even more surprised to learn that he is not a Sedevacantist. This is what he wrote, and he might even have been referring to you specifically as an “inattentive commentator”:

Quote:
1. I am not, nor have I ever been sede-vacantist even if some inattentive commentators have sought to see traits of sede-vacantism in the study on the theological possibility of a heretical Pope, which is part of my book, La Nouvelle Messe de Paul VI, Qu’en Penser? (1) Based on sound traditional dogmatic theology, regarding the Pontificates of the last decades, I do not see how it would be theologically possible to declare the See of Peter vacant at any moment. (2) If Divine Providence gives me the strength, I will soon publish a study on the theological errors of current sede-vacantist theories. (De Silveira )


Earlier you stated that you have been a Sedevacantist “for 25 years”. Very well. De Silveria has been writing on these issues since the 60’s - and you’ve been citing him for years as an authority for your position – yet, as we now know, he disagrees with your conclusion. Quite interesting, to say the least.

Now, I agree that a public warning is not always necessary. The reason for the warning is to demonstrate pertinacity in the external forum. If pertinacity was already evident, for example, by a Pope openly leaving the Church, such an action would manifest pertinacity in the will, and therefore a public warning would be unnecessary. I agree with that. But that is not the situation we have today.

Rather, what we’ve had are Popes doing and saying things that certainly render them suspect of heresy, and, in all likelihood, they have been heretics in the internal forum, but none have openly left the Church, and none have remained obstinate after being “publicly and solemnly warned” by the Cardinals or by a council. You say a Pope can’t be warned, yet you provide no authority contradicting Bellerini who said they can.

Now, since their pertinacity has not been manifest in the external forum, they are not “manifest heretics” (since heresy properly so-called requires pertinacity, and manifest heresy required a “manifestation” of pertinacity); neither have they tacitly resigned from office, which explains why de Silveira considers them all to have been Popes.

To conclude this point, I do not consider the post-Vatican II Popes to have been “manifest heretics”, nor to have “tacitly resigned” from office - a neither does de Silveira, since he has also recognized them as Popes.

But, since I just got busy at work, we need to address the question that gets to the heart of the matter - a question that should be on everyone’s mind at this point. The question is this: Since, as Canon Smith explained, a heretical Pope “must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the church, i.e., by an ecumenical council or the College of Cardinals”, what happens if we have a heretical Pope who has not been declared guilty of heresy by the Church? Does he retain his Pontificate or not? You said this is a situation no one has discussed – something I “will not find anywhere”. This is what you wrote.

Quote:
John Lane: Craisson says that according to Bellarmine's theory, "he is indeed deprived of the Pontificate by divine law but is to be declared afterwards by sentence of the Church to have fallen from the Pontifical dignity." Why would you chop that word "afterwards" out of the quote? Further, you seem determined to make something out of the word "must" which JS Daly's translation doesn't even have! But let's suppose the imperative is accurate. What would it tell us? Nothing, for Craisson says that what happens must happen "afterwards" (i.e. after the loss of office by divine law) so that whatever it means it cannot mean that the man remains pope, and it certainly cannot meant that a legal fiction by which we all pretend that he is pope is to be observed, for if such an extreme position were truly that of Craisson's then he would have to say so explicitly. It's a truly bizarre notion, which you will not find anywhere.


But such a situation has indeed been addressed and answered. It was answered by a contemporary of Bellarmine, Fr. Paul Laymann, SJ, who, according to the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia, “was one of the greatest moralists and canonists of his time” (Vol. IX Pg. 95). He directly addressed the situation of a Pope who was a heretic as a private person, but who was still recognized by the Church as Pope. This brilliant canonists explained that, even though such a man would not be a true member of the Church (at least in the internal forum of his soul), as long as he was being tolerated by the Church, and still recognized as Pope (in the external forum), he would retain the Pontifical authority. This is what he wrote:

Quote:
Fr. Paul Laymann, SJ Observe however, that, though we affirm that the Supreme Pontiff, as a private person, might be able to become a heretic and therefore cease to be a true member of the Church, (...) still, while he were tolerated by the Church, and publicly recognized as the universal pastor, he would really enjoy the pontifical power, in such a way that all his decrees will have no less force and authority than they would have if he were truly faithful”. Can the Pope Go Bad, pg. 45)


Now, since the canonists have taught that a heretical Pope “must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the church”; and since none of the post Vatican II Popes were declared guilty of heresy by the Church, you will need to explain why you, a mere layman, disagree with the teaching of this brilliant canonist.

Since you now see that the situation we are living through has indeed been directly addressed, unless you can cite an authority who contradicts what Canon Layman said, you have just lost this debate.


Tue May 06, 2014 8:11 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 284
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
RJS wrote:
Recusant wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Of course, none of this touches the matter we are discussing anyway, which is that loss of office which follows from the loss of membership in the Church. This is a tacit resignation, it is not penal, it is not dealt with in the penal section of the Code, and none of these technical points apply to it. It's essentially a question of theology, not canon law. The human law only re-states what is really a point of divine law, operating with full force and effect whether the Church explicitly incorporates it in her canons or not. As Bellarmine says, "those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms."

Please answer my questions. It's very hard to answer a charge when one cannot work out what the charge is!


Perfect.... RJS, you really need to understand this point. Read then reread it!


Recusant, a superficial reading of what Bellarmine wrote might appear to support the Sedevacantist position, but when the necessary distinctions are clarified, it doesn't.


My word sir, honestly, I mean no disrespect, but apparently you are not reading the same thing I am.


Tue May 06, 2014 9:13 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
RJS wrote:
Rather, what we’ve had are Popes doing and saying things that certainly render them suspect of heresy, and, in all likelihood, they have been heretics in the internal forum, but none have openly left the Church, and none have remained obstinate after being “publicly and solemnly warned” by the Cardinals or by a council. You say a Pope can’t be warned, yet you provide no authority contradicting Bellerini who said they can.

Now, since their pertinacity has not been manifest in the external forum, they are not “manifest heretics” (since heresy properly so-called requires pertinacity, and manifest heresy required a “manifestation” of pertinacity); neither have they tacitly resigned from office, which explains why de Silveira considers them all to have been Popes.


Clearly, if what people do and say is not in the external forum then there can be no judgment of anyone for anything since nothing they say or do is in the external forum--or maybe I just don't understand what the external forum means.

I just do not understand how you can suggest that they are probably "heretics in the internal forum" when you say that you have nothing externally by which to judge, except that you do have things to judge because they are "doing and saying things" that are heretical. It makes no sense. The reason most people don't seem to think Bergoglio, for instance, is a heretic is because they don't think about it at all, whereas you have done quite a bit of thinking on the matter and then, when a conclusion is called for, you stop.


Tue May 06, 2014 11:09 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
RJS,

Why are you so very carefully refusing to answer these plain questions? I will put them again.

RJS wrote:
It is necessary on the juridical level.


That's just as vague, shedding little light on your position. "On the juridical level" is undefined, and has no obvious meaning, so you'll need to define it. And "necessary" is still not given any real meaning either. Is there a law, so that when you say that something is necessary, you mean that to act otherwise is to breach the law? If so, what is this law, where is it written, why can you not cite it? If you mean necessary in some other sense, say what it is and then we'll see if you can support that, whatever it is.

I have pointed out the distinction, dealt with in the Code, between the loss of office and the procedure for filling it again. You ignored that, leading any realistic person to think that you were not referring to that. So what are you referring to? You fail to say.

...

RJS wrote:
But on the practical level, when viewed from the perspective of the taught Church (that’s us), both opinions are virtually identical. From our perspective, the Pope (opinion 2), or “Pope” (Opinion 1) is judged guilty of heresy and declared (or confirmed) to have lost his office. Either way, the cause must be judged by the Church.


You seem to imagine that you just said something meaningful with that paragraph. You have not, because you refuse to define your terms. "Either way, the cause must be judged by the Church," you write. But why? What difference does it make? You don't say. Why not?

...

RJS wrote:
You asked if I disagree with your position, or if I only consider it naughty. I disagree that you have the authority to declare your opinion as a fact and seek to persuade others to embrace it...


More vagueness. Could you please answer the question? Are we breaching some law (i.e. we are "naughty") or is our judgement that he isn't pope inaccurate? You insist on using ambiguous phrases which escape any proper analysis. What does it mean to say we don't have the "authority" to do something? We don't claim any authority, which if it means anything means the right to submission to our instructions, judgements, etc. by some class of other people. Do you mean we don't have the right? If so, tell us what law we are breaching.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue May 06, 2014 11:14 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
RJS,

Don't answer anything except the specific questions I have now put to you three times. What does "on the juridical level" mean? etc.

RJS wrote:
Where we disagree is that I don’t believe these Popes qualify as manifest heretics, since manifest heresy requires that pertinacity be manifest in the external forum. And interestingly, neither does da Silveira, who wrote the article you just cited. Since de Silveira has been quoted so often by Sedevacantist in support of the Sedevacantist position, I think it is appropriate to again quote what he had to said a few years. After quoting him in favor of your position for so many years, I’m sure you were surprised to learn that he is still alive, and I’m sure your were even more surprised to learn that he is not a Sedevacantist.


We don't quote da Silveira as an authority, we quote him because he quotes authorities. In this case, you got a completely mistaken idea from mis-reading him so I quoted him back to show you that he himself doesn't agree with your spectacularly wrong notion - viz. that declaratory judgements of heresy must be preceded by warnings.

Now, even more interesting is the new data you provide, which is that you think we are suprised to discover that da Silveira was not a sedevacantist. I am staggered by this, for two reasons. Firstly, that anybody could think that this very well-known figure could have been misunderstood in such a small circle as the traditional Catholic milieu. NOBODY (except you, apparently!) thought that he was a sedevacantist! In one of my articles on Archbishop Lefebvre I quote the Archbishop from the late 1970s praising da Silveira and pointing out that he wasn't a sedevacantist. But what's more staggering, is that you are quoting this man's book and have been since 2007, yet you now very manifestly reveal that you haven't read it! For da Silviera shows very clearly in his book that he doesn't accept our thesis. We all know this, we've all known it all along. "We" meaning those of us who have read his book. Oh my.

RJS wrote:
This is what he wrote, and he might even have been referring to you specifically as an “inattentive commentator”:


No mate, that's YOU. :lol:

RJS wrote:
Now, I agree that a public warning is not always necessary. The reason for the warning is to demonstrate pertinacity in the external forum. If pertinacity was already evident, for example, by a Pope openly leaving the Church, such an action would manifest pertinacity in the will, and therefore a public warning would be unnecessary. I agree with that. But that is not the situation we have today.


You're changing the subject, AGAIN. We're not agreed on the theory, so we can't discuss a concrete case. So far, we've been discussing the theory, and now suddently you want to leap to the concrete case of Francis. Go and answer my questions and we'll find out what it is you are actually saying about the theory, then at some point it might be useful to apply it to the factual data. This is intellectual chaos.

RJS wrote:
You say a Pope can’t be warned, yet you provide no authority contradicting Bellerini who said they can.


I never said they can't be warned. Go and re-read what was said. This is so frustrating, it's like you learned to write but skipped the thing that usually precedes that - reading. I said that they cannot be warned by a superior. My point is that if whoever is warning a pope is his inferior, then there's no principle according to which you can limit this role to some inferiors and not to others. As Ballerini says, St. Paul's doctrine governs ALL, including laymen (as Paul IV helpfully stated explicitly).

Your personal judgement is not an argument, but it's interesting to see that you treat it as if it were.

RJS wrote:
But, since I just got busy at work, ...


Ah, setting up an escape, are we? :)

RJS wrote:
The question is this: Since, as Canon Smith explained, a heretical Pope “must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the church, i.e., by an ecumenical council or the College of Cardinals”, what happens if we have a heretical Pope who has not been declared guilty of heresy by the Church? Does he retain his Pontificate or not? You said this is a situation no one has discussed – something I “will not find anywhere”. This is what you wrote. ...


Again, you are completely misunderstanding a very simple point. Not only did you find Laymann saying that a heretic pope would retain his office if the Church adheres to him, you'll find many others saying it. They are partisans of the Cajetan-Suarez school. Paul IV says the direct opposite in Cum ex apostolatus, of course. But this is all completely beside the (very obvious) point.

Here it is again. We are discussing the opinion that constitutes Bellarmine's doctrine, and Craisson is summarising it, and from that summary you are boldly removing the word "afterwards" (without leaving an ellipsis! :) ).

John Lane wrote:
Craisson says that according to Bellarmine's theory, "he is indeed deprived of the Pontificate by divine law but is to be declared afterwards by sentence of the Church to have fallen from the Pontifical dignity." Why would you chop that word "afterwards" out of the quote? Further, you seem determined to make something out of the word "must" which JS Daly's translation doesn't even have! But let's suppose the imperative is accurate. What would it tell us? Nothing, for Craisson says that what happens [i.e. according to Bellarmine's theory] must happen "afterwards" (i.e. after the loss of office by divine law) so that whatever it means it cannot mean that the man remains pope, and it certainly cannot meant that a legal fiction by which we all pretend that he is pope is to be observed, for if such an extreme position were truly that of Craisson's [i.e. Craisson's explanation of Bellarmine's theory] then he would have to say so explicitly. It's a truly bizarre notion, which you will not find anywhere.


So what you will not find anywhere is a writer saying, as you say, that Bellarmine agrees that a heretic pope remains pope, or must be treated as pope despite not being pope, until and unless judged by the Church. The whole point of his thesis is that the heretic ipso facto leaves the Church and resigns his office. After this happens, he can be judged and punished, if men choose to pursue that course. You omit the word "afterwards" I presume because you don't grasp why it's there. I'm explaining why it's there.

RJS wrote:
Now, since the canonists have taught that a heretical Pope “must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the church”;


I have given you the greatest canonists of the modern era, Wernz-Vidal, saying something perfectly incompatible with your home-baked theory, yet you persist in claiming that "the canonists" agree with you. Please come back to planet Earth.

RJS wrote:
Since you now see that the situation we are living through has indeed been directly addressed, unless you can cite an authority who contradicts what Canon Layman said, you have just lost this debate.


You're a funny guy.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue May 06, 2014 11:52 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
Dear RJS,

I can't resist pointing out another very humorous error you make. A canon is a cleric who lives according to a rule - usually in a chapter. You seem to think that it's a title for canonists (i.e. men who study canon law).

RJS wrote:
book by Canon Smith was sent ...


RJS wrote:
what Canon Layman said,


Neither Smith nor Laymann was a canon. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed May 07, 2014 12:18 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:13 am
Posts: 194
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
Okay, I can't resist a humorous interlude...

What do RJS and Francis Bergoglio have in common?

_________________
On the last day, when the general examination takes place, there will be no question at all on the text of Aristotle, the aphorisms of Hippocrates, or the paragraphs of Justinian. Charity will be the whole syllabus.

- St. Robert Bellarmine


Wed May 07, 2014 12:32 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:13 am
Posts: 194
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
.

Answer: They have both falsely canonised two people. 8)

_________________
On the last day, when the general examination takes place, there will be no question at all on the text of Aristotle, the aphorisms of Hippocrates, or the paragraphs of Justinian. Charity will be the whole syllabus.

- St. Robert Bellarmine


Wed May 07, 2014 12:35 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:25 am
Posts: 98
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
John Lane wrote:

I can't resist pointing out another very humorous error you make. ... Neither Smith nor Laymann was a canon. :)


I know what a Canon is. But what you don’t seem to realize is that these Church approved theologians disagree with your position, and confirm my position. So you ad hominem is a clear example of straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.

But I have to admit, Katie's joke was quite good.


Last edited by RJS on Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wed May 07, 2014 8:54 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:58 am
Posts: 50
Location: Massachusetts, USA
New post Re: The Latest from Robert Siscoe CFN April 2014
Thank you, John Lane for your patience and for continuing to rebut RJS. It may seem like going around the mulberry bush for many but for those of us who are new to the SV thesis it is very helpful. This website is an important resource for those learning about the issues. Thank you!


Wed May 07, 2014 9:24 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 131 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.