6 thoughts on “Bellarmine on Trial: Setting the record straight”
I’m always happy to get down in the weeds on the old St. Bellarmine vs Cajetan/JST argument, but when I realized that:
1. A pope can fall into heresy (da Silveira’s work demonstrates this);
2. Francis has officially taught heresy to the universal church (Dr. Lamont’s recent article lays them out), and is therefore a heretic;
3. What follows from that regarding Francis’s office is uncertain (St. Bellarmine or Cajetan/JST), but for that very reason, we’re in the realm of opinion: The Church hasn’t endorsed either view.
4. It means sedevacantism is at least theologically plausible.
5. Once that started to sink in, my dogmatic anti sedevacantism vanished, and I understood Lefebvre’s quotes on the subject to say or suggest the same thing.
Maybe he’s a pope, and maybe he isn’t. I’ll wait for the Church to regain normality, and decide. In the meantime, being in “schism” from Francis and the conciliar church has lost the terror it once instilled (and as Dr. Lamont observes, it’s not clear why the absence of a pope should be more terrifying to pius Catholics than the spectacle of a pope using his office to destroy the Catholic religion).
As to your first point, Fr. Paul Kramer argues that a true pope cannot commit the sin of heresy, either publicly or privately. Father agrees with St. Robert Bellarmine’s First Opinion as the true one. I think Father does a convincing job of demonstrating it. Father holds the First Opinion as proximate to Faith.
As to your third point, why is it uncertain? Here is the syllogism I wrote on previous posts on this website:
The public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church (Divine and Catholic Faith).
But Jorge Bergoglio has committed the public sin of manifest formal heresy (moral certitude).
Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio is separated from the Church (moral certitude).
I say it’s “uncertain” simply because other approved eminent theologians held contradictory opinions (eg., Billuart held that even a formal heretic retains his office until his loss of office is declared). That opinion is the opposite of Fr. Kramer’s opinion, yet not only was it not condemned, but even finds some implicit canonical support (Can. 1361).
I think this question of how (or whether) a pope can lose/retain his office will be one of the big theological advances to emerge from the present crisis. But until that happens, I’m more and more reluctant to declare that anyone’s position can bind the conscience of others when the Church has not yet decided the matter.
As an aside, that realization has dissipated the compulsion which formerly drove me to debate these issues into the ground. I’m perfectly content to be contradicted.
Not so much that, but rather the consequences of the separation: Can. 2264 (I previously mistakenly said 1361) suggests that the acts of an excommunicant can remain valid (which seems like a tacit recognition of Billuart). If I accept your major, am I not obliged to conclude that the Church teaches a non-Catholic validly governs the Catholic Church until/unless he’s declared to have lost his office?
The major premise of the third of the syllogisms below is that a non-member of the Church cannot be pope. Canon 2264 does not necessarily deal only with non-members of the Church because excommunication does not necessarily make you a non-member of the Church. Theologians distinguish between perfect and imperfect excommunication. Nonetheless, even if we grant that Canon 2264 deals only with perfect excommunication, there is no way that the term “jurisdiction” in the Canon refers to habitual or ordinary jurisdiction. It only refers to supplied jurisdiction. To claim that one can be perfectly excommunicated and at the same time retain ordinary jurisdiction is nonsense because ordinary jurisdiction is attached to an office (and in the case we are discussing, the supreme office), so if the office could exist in a non-member, then it would exist outside of the Church.
A counterargument to using Canon 2264 is that it does not apply to a pope because a pope is above these types of canons. That’s why I emphasis the public SIN of heresy. It is the public SIN of heresy that per se separates the heretic from the Church (Divine Law). This would be the case even if the Church did not have a Code of Canon Law.
The public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church.
But Jorge Bergoglio has committed the public sin of manifest formal heresy.
Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio is separated from the Church.
One who is separated from the Church is not a member of the Church.
But Jorge Bergoglio is separated from the Church.
Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio is not a member of the Church.
One who is not a member of the Church cannot be pope.
But Jorge Bergoglio is not a member of the Church.
Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio cannot be pope.
I’m always happy to get down in the weeds on the old St. Bellarmine vs Cajetan/JST argument, but when I realized that:
1. A pope can fall into heresy (da Silveira’s work demonstrates this);
2. Francis has officially taught heresy to the universal church (Dr. Lamont’s recent article lays them out), and is therefore a heretic;
3. What follows from that regarding Francis’s office is uncertain (St. Bellarmine or Cajetan/JST), but for that very reason, we’re in the realm of opinion: The Church hasn’t endorsed either view.
4. It means sedevacantism is at least theologically plausible.
5. Once that started to sink in, my dogmatic anti sedevacantism vanished, and I understood Lefebvre’s quotes on the subject to say or suggest the same thing.
Maybe he’s a pope, and maybe he isn’t. I’ll wait for the Church to regain normality, and decide. In the meantime, being in “schism” from Francis and the conciliar church has lost the terror it once instilled (and as Dr. Lamont observes, it’s not clear why the absence of a pope should be more terrifying to pius Catholics than the spectacle of a pope using his office to destroy the Catholic religion).
As to your first point, Fr. Paul Kramer argues that a true pope cannot commit the sin of heresy, either publicly or privately. Father agrees with St. Robert Bellarmine’s First Opinion as the true one. I think Father does a convincing job of demonstrating it. Father holds the First Opinion as proximate to Faith.
As to your third point, why is it uncertain? Here is the syllogism I wrote on previous posts on this website:
The public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church (Divine and Catholic Faith).
But Jorge Bergoglio has committed the public sin of manifest formal heresy (moral certitude).
Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio is separated from the Church (moral certitude).
Hi Tony-
I say it’s “uncertain” simply because other approved eminent theologians held contradictory opinions (eg., Billuart held that even a formal heretic retains his office until his loss of office is declared). That opinion is the opposite of Fr. Kramer’s opinion, yet not only was it not condemned, but even finds some implicit canonical support (Can. 1361).
I think this question of how (or whether) a pope can lose/retain his office will be one of the big theological advances to emerge from the present crisis. But until that happens, I’m more and more reluctant to declare that anyone’s position can bind the conscience of others when the Church has not yet decided the matter.
As an aside, that realization has dissipated the compulsion which formerly drove me to debate these issues into the ground. I’m perfectly content to be contradicted.
Sean, what I see is that you are uncertain about the major premise of my syllogism:
The public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from Church.
Am I correct?
Hi Tony-
Not so much that, but rather the consequences of the separation: Can. 2264 (I previously mistakenly said 1361) suggests that the acts of an excommunicant can remain valid (which seems like a tacit recognition of Billuart). If I accept your major, am I not obliged to conclude that the Church teaches a non-Catholic validly governs the Catholic Church until/unless he’s declared to have lost his office?
The major premise of the third of the syllogisms below is that a non-member of the Church cannot be pope. Canon 2264 does not necessarily deal only with non-members of the Church because excommunication does not necessarily make you a non-member of the Church. Theologians distinguish between perfect and imperfect excommunication. Nonetheless, even if we grant that Canon 2264 deals only with perfect excommunication, there is no way that the term “jurisdiction” in the Canon refers to habitual or ordinary jurisdiction. It only refers to supplied jurisdiction. To claim that one can be perfectly excommunicated and at the same time retain ordinary jurisdiction is nonsense because ordinary jurisdiction is attached to an office (and in the case we are discussing, the supreme office), so if the office could exist in a non-member, then it would exist outside of the Church.
A counterargument to using Canon 2264 is that it does not apply to a pope because a pope is above these types of canons. That’s why I emphasis the public SIN of heresy. It is the public SIN of heresy that per se separates the heretic from the Church (Divine Law). This would be the case even if the Church did not have a Code of Canon Law.
The public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church.
But Jorge Bergoglio has committed the public sin of manifest formal heresy.
Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio is separated from the Church.
One who is separated from the Church is not a member of the Church.
But Jorge Bergoglio is separated from the Church.
Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio is not a member of the Church.
One who is not a member of the Church cannot be pope.
But Jorge Bergoglio is not a member of the Church.
Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio cannot be pope.