Me to Bogle: One point I do owe you an apology. I did do something useful: I did post the end of this discussion from which it is apparent to someone praying for me that I misunderstood St Robert's fifth and true position. Typically by conflation of two true memories into a slightly false one: I remembered that "loss of papacy at even inner heresy" was among the rejected positions (you can obviously say which of the first three), and according to Natterer's resumé, that is so because if later we detect the Pope already has lost papacy by a secret inward act, we do not know when, and so would not know from what point a new pope would have to take measures to repair the ill effects of a previous loss of papal power. Apologies. If you had simply said "no you confuse fifth position with nth position" I would have apologised earlier. However, even according to fifth position, it is not apparent that it is only cardinals who can say that such an apparent obvious loss of papacy has already happened. The Nestorius case says something else.
Hans-Georg Lundahl James Bogle, you only quoted an account of refuting tyrannicide. Which by the way St Albert the Great was one having taught legitimate. Franco did not try to kill Azaña, Mussolini far from trying to kill (even if he be excommunicated) his king merely insisted on becoming prime minister. What we do find in St THomas Aquinas was in both cases followed out:
II-II, Q42, A2
"Objection 3: Further, it is praiseworthy to deliver a multitude from a tyrannical rule. Yet this cannot easily be done without some dissension in the multitude, if one part of the multitude seeks to retain the tyrant, while the rest strive to dethrone him. Therefore there can be sedition without mortal sin."
[Note how it is answered (ad 3):]
"A tyrannical government is not just, because it is directed, not to the common good, but to the private good of the ruler, as the Philosopher states (Polit. iii, 5; Ethic. viii, 10). Consequently there is no sedition in disturbing a government of this kind, unless indeed the tyrant's rule be disturbed so inordinately, that his subjects suffer greater harm from the consequent disturbance than from the tyrant's government. Ondeed it is the tyrant rather that is guilty of sedition, since he encourages discord and sedition among his subjects, that he may lord over them more securely; for this is tyranny, being conducive to the private good of the ruler, and to the injury of the multitude."
I repeat: "Consequently there is no sedition in disturbing a government of this kind, unless indeed the tyrant's rule be disturbed so inordinately, that his subjects suffer greater harm from the consequent disturbance than from the tyrant's government."
That last qualification suffices to make Cromwell unjust even supposing one could by any stretch of imagination construe Ship Money and Not Persecuting Catholics Enough as acts of tyranny. Obviously the non-tyrannous, supposedly so, overthrowal of Charles I was more harmful to his subjects than whatever harm his own rule can be construed as having been.
Note that your own quote was about "killing" a tyrant, what I wrote about was "overthrowing" a tyranny. [See further double effect, as to what private citizens can, it is James Bogle who brings this up after Council of Constance is cited]
"It is a fact that, rightly or wrongly, "deprehenditur" does NOT appear in the 1983 Codex." - Spoof argument. I said it appeared in Denzinger, in context of Innocent III, not that it appeared in either 1917 or 1983 codes. BBL when verifying source in Denzinger, meanwhile I trust my memory even if you do not.
"If your case is that, because the Pope cannot err when teaching infallibly and cannot legislate to cause serious harm to the Church, if he does so, pertinaciously and publicly, then he deposes himself from the Papal office, then I agree with you." - There you agree in part to what Pope Innocent III said. Only, having thought of Liberius as a heretic judgeable by anyone as from signing formula of Sirmium (all did so up to end of Middle Ages), he would not have agreed those occasions were the only one by which a Pope could call himself a non-Pope by his acts. However, I am not sure your take agrees better with St Robert Bellarmine than with Cajetan. When Fr Paul Natterer defended the SSPX position in a series of talks in Zaitzkofen, he settled on Cajetan rather than Bellarmine for the most Catholic position. St Robert says, first of all a Pope would never be allowed to fall into heresy, but second, if he did so,
James Bogle Earlier, arrogantly and insultingly, you claimed that I could not, or would not, read. It seems you should charge yourself with the same accusation. Go back and read the last part of the quotation.
Let me remind you what St Thomas said:
"[48] Furthermore, it seems that to proceed against the cruelty of tyrants is an action to be undertaken, not through the private presumption of a few, but rather by public authority."
Plainly, therefore, and clean contrary to your case, merely to PROCEED against the cruelty of tyrants by private presumption is wrong. It is a matter for public authority.
Thus St Thomas clearly doe NOT confien himself to tyrannicide but any proceeding against a tyrant.
Clearly, then, to ensure consistency in his teaching, we must take it that ST II-II, Q42, A2 is referring to a tyrant by usurpation (i.e. tyrannus in titulo) and not a tyrant by oppression (tyrannus in regimine).
In any case, the Council of Constance, and papally-ratified Ecumenical Council and so the highest doctrinal authority, has, I have already shown, expressly condemned sedition, even against a tyrant.
But, clearly, I must repeat the extract since you, rather hypocritically, seem to be unwilling or unable to read what I then wrote (and yet attack me for allegedly not reading your words). The Council of Constance condemned as contrary to faith and morals the proposition that:
"Any vassal or subject can lawfully and meritoriously kill, and ought to kill, any tyrant. He may even, for this purpose, avail himself of ambushes, and wily expressions of affection or of adulation, notwithstanding any oath or pact imposed upon him by the tyrant, and without waiting for the sentence or order of any judge." (Session XV)
A tyrant by usurpation (tyrannus in titula) MAY be overthrown (and even killed) if the TRUE authority sentences or orders it but then only if the disturbance is not worse than the tyranny.
But it is contrary to faith and morals and not in accord with Apostolic teaching to seek to overthrow (or kill) a tyrant by oppression (tyrannus in regimine) although one may (indeed must) defend oneself and one's family and friends from his depredations.
If, per accidens, in defending onsefl and one's friends and family, the regime is unintentionally overthrown or the tyrant unintentionally killed, then the usual rule of double effect applies. But one may NOT do so intentionally.
Now, your case that the tyrannus in regimine may be overthrown but not killed, is a disingenuous one. Firstly, St Thomas does not confine himself to tyrannicide but to any sedition against tyrannus in regimine (see above De Regno, para 48); and, secondly, since the tyrant is an oppressor, it would be exceedingly difficult to dislodge him without force and force must needs mean that the tyrant's life is under threat. If it is wrong to kill him then it is equally wrong to take steps which will likely lead to his death. A murderer, or tyrannicide, cannot plead in his defence that he took steps knowing they might lead to death but death did not result. Whilst that may not be murder or tyrannicide it would still be a very serious offence.
The reason is not far to seek - and St Thomas makes this clear in De Regno. Who has authroity to declare the sedition? No-one. A true ruler may legislate for his subjects but a private citizen may not legislate for others. In declaring a sedition, that is what a private citizen does. If he has the authority of the true ruler to overthrow an usurper then it is no sedition but is lawful use of force.
If, however, private citizens claim the right to overthrow a tyrant who is not a usurper and they do so without the sanction of higher authority than the tyrant (e.g. the Pope or Emperor or superior sovereign) then they are themselves tyrants and seditious and should be opposed.
Obvious and logical.
You then seriously misquote St Robert Bellarmine. Far from saying that a Pope who is a heretic "in his heart" is no longer Pope and may be regarded as an anti-pope, St Robert says the opposite. Like Liguori and Cajetan, he says that the Pope must continue to be regarded as Pope unless and until he manifests his heresy, poublicaly and pertinaciously. You are seriously wrong, here. [I did not say he said a Pope could be regarded as self-deposed immediately after inner heresy, ever: the difference between what I wrongly attributed to St Robert and what he said is, on expressing heresy, is such a non-Pope regarded as losing same moment or as having secretly lost earlier his papacy, and as Bogle says, the latter is clearly rejected]
Before God, it is true, the Pope may cease to be pope but that - obviously - is not something that any private Catholic can judge. [I was wrong, since papacy is a public charge and not an inner state of grace, I had not wroked out the implications about from when papal acts should be regarded as null, obviously not before any expression of heresy] Indeed, no private Catholic may judge the Pope even when he is a public and pertinacious heretic, so as to depose him. A Catholic may distance himself from an heretical pope but he cannot judge him to be an anti-pope. However, a pope who teaches heresy publicly and pertinaciously, JUDGES HIMSELF, according to Bellarmine and so deposes himself. The Cardinals may then elect a new pope. [Not quite: he is ipso facto deposed, and can be judged by any ecclesiastic judge, including a bishop stopping him from spreading heresy in his diocese, including also cardinals so that they can elect a new pope, but these theoretically possible judgements presuppose that he already has ceased to be a superior, by manifesting heresy.]
And, NO, I do NOT trust your memory. Indeed, a person who trusts his own memory, when challenged by others as to its veracity, is not a scholar but a fraud. [I was wrong, but not a fraud, see above]
Hans-Georg Lundahl My excuses, but you missed a nuance in the words you claimed I could not read: "furthermore it would seem that ..." - as in this need not be his firm own opinion at all. You might do better to have trusted my memory, might be off to DTC tomorrow, article on Papal infallibility is pretty likely to give me right.
"he says that the Pope must continue to be regarded as Pope unless and until he manifests his heresy, poublicaly and pertinaciously." - Yes, he must still be regarded until he manifests his heresy as pope, but if he does he need no longer be regarded as pope by anyone. Nor need anyone in such a case be ashamed to say he no longer regards him as pope. Now, back to 48: even if this is a case of St Thomas' own standpoint, rather than ingress for a second rebuttal like 46 after 45, he says "public authority", not necessarily a higher such than the tyrant would have been if not a tyrant in regimine. It is also quite possible that St Thomas changed his mind.
If so II-II 42 2 ad 3 prevails.
James Bogle As to papal desposition you are still merely spouting your own opinion with no authority to back it up. What Doctors like Bellarmine, Liguori and Cajetan say is that the heresy must be public and pertinacious. It must also be obvious heresy. Even then, no private Catholic may publicly declare the Pope deposed. The College of Cardinals would need to confirm that the Pope had deposed himself and that they would be electing another. They would not be judging the Papal See but only recognising the self-judgment of its occupant for the time being. Your fatuous idea that any Catholic can declare the Pope a heretic and so withdraw allegiance is simply a recipe for permanent dissent.
As to your memory, either put up or shut up. You have been challenged. Find the source or face the fact that you are wrong.
As to tyrants, your argument is circular. You assume the thing you must prove i.e. that the tyrannus in regimine is not legitimate and that thus those below the ruler in teh state may overthrow him. Wrong. He is legitimate ruler unless an usurper and thus cannot be overthrown by his subjects. To do so is sedition, contrary to apostolic teaching and the teaching of St Thomas.
It is also, you forget, contrary to the authority of the Council of Constance.
And even more absurd would be to suggest that, in the matter of tryants, right order may be reversed and a lower "public authority" may sit in judgment upon, and overthrow, a higher which is manifestly absurd.
As to St Thomas changing his mind, that is unlikely since he was writing ST II-II around the same time as De Regno in 1267.
Thus, on the authority of De Regno, ST II-II 42 2 ad 3 must be interpreted to mean tyrannus in titula rather than tyrannus in regimine.
And my point stands.
Hans-Georg Lundahl Tarquin the Haughty - cited just after your quote ends from De regimine principum or de regimine regum - was not an usurper. So your point about that falls. St Thomas Aquinas, just after your quote ends, specifically says there is no disloyalty in the people as a whole (note: not equal to one individual) deposing him. He also makes a point about tyrants having to be born with _for a while_ or _at first_ but does not say individuals can exercise no self-defense against individual acts of tyranny while waiting and hoping an otherwise legitime ruler would mend and see that what he was supporting was tyranny. And your point about ST II-II 42 2 ad 3 falls because if you were right the ST would be opaque except to those having also access to De Regimine - which is false. About quotes from Innocent III and St Leo IX, forebear yet a while. There were passages missing from documents in the edition of Denzinger I consulted today.
"What Doctors like Bellarmine, Liguori and Cajetan say is that the heresy must be public and pertinacious. It must also be obvious heresy. Even then, no private Catholic may publicly declare the Pope deposed."
Let us distinguish: for the Pope to actually loose papacy, acc. to Bellarmin, it suffices with purely inner heresy. [Remembered that one wrong, see correction above] For that loss of papacy to be apparent, we are in another boat. [And manifest plus ipso facto imply that this ipso facto loss of papacy is also manifest to anyone knowing this rule, not just to someone judging him]
Furthermore, you talk about publically declaring the pope deposed, yes, if we talk of official declarations binding on the Church, that cannot be the task of an individual.
But when there is - you were quite right about qualities - public, pertinacious, obvious - heresy, neither is there any sin in someone finding he cannot consider himself bound to obey that or that pope.
Indeed, SSPX cites one saint in the time of either Paschalis II or John XXII or one saint in each of those times (I refer to the series of talks by Paul Natterer) who declared in a letter to such or such pope or both of them, that if he did not withdraw a certain heretical opinion they would "withdraw their obedience" - obviously (except for SSPX) an euphemism for saying later on (which they or he did not have to do, pope or popes withdrew their stances) that such and such was no pope ut self deposed.
James Bogle No, my point does not fall at all. And your illogicality and stiff-necked obstinacy in error does you no credit.
You have failed to read paras 49 and 50 in full. I reproduce them here:
[49] If to provide itself with a king belongs to the right of a given multitude, it is not unjust that the king be deposed or have his power restricted by that same multitude if, becoming a tyrant, he abuses the royal power. It must not be thought that such a multitude is acting unfaithfully in deposing the tyrant, even though it had previously subjected itself to him in perpetuity, because he himself has deserved that the covenant with his subjects should not be kept, since, in ruling the multitude, he did not act faithfully as the office of a king demands. Thus did the Romans, who had accepted Tarquin the Proud as their king, cast him out from the kingship on account of his tyranny and the tyranny of his sons; and they set up in their place a lesser power, namely, the consular power. Similarly Domitian, who had succeeded those most moderate emperors, Vespasian, his father, and Titus, his brother, was slain by the Roman senate when he exercised tyranny, and all his wicked deeds were justly, and profitably declared null and void by a decree of the senate. Thus it came about that Blessed John the Evangelist, the beloved disciple of God, who had been exiled to the island of Patmos by that very Domitian, was sent back to Ephesus by a decree of the senate.
[50] If, on the other hand, it pertains to the right of a higher authority to provide a king for a certain multitude, a remedy against the wickedness of a tyrant is to be looked for from him. Thus when Archelaus, who had already begun to reign in Judaea in the place of Herod his father, was imitating his father’s wickedness, a complaint against him having been laid before Caesar Augustus by the Jews, his power was at first diminished by depriving him of his title of king and by dividing one-half of his kingdom between his two brothers. Later, since he was not restrained from tyranny even by this means, Tiberius Caesar sent him into exile to Lugdunum, a city in Gaul.
Indeed, these passages prove my point yet more forcefully.
The material words are contained in the very first sentence thus: "If to provide itself with a king belongs to the right of a given multitude, it is not unjust that the king be deposed or have his power restricted by that same multitude if, becoming a tyrant, he abuses the royal power". The superior power in that situation is the "given multitude" since the Roman Constitution recognised the right of the Comitia to elect the king. [Not quite so at all: but since Rome was the given multitude of which Tarquin was ruler without being imposed by foreign rule] Having the right to elect the king that same "given multitude" have the right to depose him. And that is what they did with Tarquin the Proud. [Having the right to provide itself with a king, whether by election or dynasty, etc. implies such a right]
But then comes para 50 which you "conveniently" forget to mention.
It reads: "If, on the other hand, it pertains to the right of a higher authority to provide a king for a certain multitude, a remedy against the wickedness of a tyrant is to be looked for from him". [And example cited means a ruler of a vaster commonwealth providing it with not as much a sovereign as a viceroy]
This ENTIRELY proves my point.
In an hereditary system, the king is selected by birth, not election, and thus can be deposed by no-one except, perhaps the Pope or the Emperor. He cannot be overthrown by the multitude since the Constiution recognises no such power in them. [But the constitution itself is an expression of the multitude. It had, for instance the right to provide itself with a constitution.]
Indeed, even in the para 49 situation, and that of King Tarquin, it did not lie in the power of mere private citizens to overthrow the king but only in the recognised multitude who had the power to elect him, i.e. the members of the Comitia. This again, further proves my point. [His i e is wrong in part: any Roman Official immediately under the King and sufficiently representing Rome as such, but since Comitia had elected, they were the official organ most fitted to represent the multitude of Rome in such an enterprise]
You once again misquote Bellarmine. I have already pointed this out to you. You simply ignore the point and make the same error all over again.
Bellarmine did NOT EVER say that mere inner heresy was sufficient for the Pope to lose his office publicly, as you imply. [I was incorrect in saying inner heresy was sufficient to lose papacy acc. to Bellarmine, but I never even implied it was sufficient to do so publically]
Moreover, the fact that a particular pope holds an heretical opinion, privately or semi-privately, is not sufficient for self-deposition but it IS sufficient for a Catholic to refuse to accept that opinion and even to temper their obedience accordingly. It is does not necessarily imply that the Pope is self-deposed.
John XXII did not believe in a pre-general, particular judgment (which was heresy) but he was not self-deposed thereby although he did receive threats of “withdrawal of obedience” which might amount to an accusation that he was no longer pope. In fact, he withdrew the heresy on his deathbed at the behest of the cardinals. [Actually, whether it was he or Pascal II or both who received such threats, if they remained Popes it is because they withdrew wrongful opinions: as for John XXII, Marc of Ephesus - counted as a saint by the Photians, thus once by myself too - would have not considered him a heretic on that account.]
However, only a Catholic may be pope. If one is an occult heretic then God will not consider him pope. But we, Catholics, must continue to do so until he self-deposes publicly by pertinacious and public heresy. Even then, we must continue to accept his legal authority (whilst reserving our conscientious position) until the cardinals recognise his self-deposition and indicate that they will be electing another pope.
This is the true view of Bellarmine.
And my point about ST II-II 42 2 ad 3 stands.
No document stands entirely on its own without any other. Not even the Bible (despite what Protestants say).
The same is true of St Thomas. His texts must be read in the context of his other books also.
Abusrdly, you call this false, as if St Thomas has a higher claim to be self-sufficient even than texts like the Bible.
That is nonsense.
It is clear from De Regno that ST II-II 42 2 ad 3 must be taken to refer to tyrannus in titula, incorporating within the meaning of "usurper", Tarquin the Proud and others like him who, after appointment by the multitude, break the terms of their appointment by oppressing the multitude and so may be deposed by his appointers.
In so doing they may be regarded as "usurpers".
Even if you disagree with that view, you are still wrong to suppose that any tyrannus in regimine may be deposed by private citizens which is the substance of the dispute between us.
In simple terms, the higher power may not by overthrown by the lower as that is sedition. And, in the case of Tarquin, the higher power, for the purposes of deposition, was the Comitia. [If Etruria had had the power to impose kings, Etruria would have been that higher power, but Rome cannot be a higher power than Rome, just as Etruria cannot be a higher power than Etruria].
I think you should now submit gracefully.
Hans-Georg Lundah "Bellarmine did NOT EVER say that mere inner heresy was sufficient for the Pope to lose his office publicly, as you imply" - I did not say for the Pope to lose office publically, but for the pope to lose office. [And was wrong, see above]
And I did not misquote, since in that case it was Paul Natterer who did so. The passage would begin "the fifth position is the true one" or words closely similar. And Paul Natterer just as you rejected that position but unlike you he referred to Cajetan as in this particular question being more "ausgewogen" and Catholic than St Robert. [Fifth position, as I later admitted, see above, and as quoted below by Bogle is that manifest heresy is the moment papacy would in such a case be lost]
You falsely claim my position about a private citizen under a rightfully acceeding king becoming tyrant by abuse of power is that he can declare the king self-deposed by tyranny.
I said no such thing and that is not the only alternative to a hereditary king abusing power having to remain there until the pope or emperor deposes him.
My position about the private citizen is that he can "temper obedience" as you put it with a pope holding privately heretical opinions.
My position about deposition is that whether a multitude has the right to elect each king or the monarchy as such is hereditary, what St Thomas is talking about is a sovereign nation as opposed to a conquered province or an all too topheavy empire.
Louis XIV could for instance have been lawfully deposed for what he did to M. Montespan, just as much as Tarquin the Haughty for what his son did to Lucrece.
In the next case St Thomas is talking about a higher authority because Judah is no longer sovereign but under the higher authority of Rome.
But the proper procedure if a lawful highest authority in a sovereign nation has become tyrannic is, first of all to wait and hope it betters itself, all the while tempering obedience and allowing self-defense to those wrongfully attacked by it.
Second step when it is too obvious after too long that the tyranny is too systematic, is for holders of public offices under the tyrant to defend older and better laws by refusing the new ones, whether they be put quasi as laws or as directives.
Third step is for officeholders to get together about a deposition, note that I say officeholders, not private individuals.
Nevertheless, a private individual can, whether to pope or to sovereign, express the opinion that this opinion helf by one or that directive made by other constitutes proof that the officeholder in question has become either self-deposed pope or deposable tyrant.
Of course if that opinion is false and if there is a risk much evil come out of it, that private individual may be tried for treason in such a case.
"No document stands entirely on its own without any other. Not even the Bible (despite what Protestants say).
"The same is true of St Thomas. His texts must be read in the context of his other books also.
"Abusrdly, you call this false, as if St Thomas has a higher claim to be self-sufficient even than texts like the Bible."
It is not because the Holy Bible is high that it is self-explaining. A baking recipe is self-explanatory without being high. The Bible is high but in some places (let us not exaggerate the amount of them, but a place in Romans seems to have riddled Dr Luther and a few key words here and there like episcopus, presbyter, diaconus and ecclesia seem to have riddled some others or even him), not self-explanatory.
Now, the Summa, like the baking recipe, is supposed to be a form where each item (like each questio) is pretty self-explanatory.
But in another sense, St Thomas is really below Biblical authors: they are inerrant, he is not automatically.
But rather than say he changed his mind on this, I say it is ST II-II 42 2 ad 3 which is the clearer of the two instances and the one which explains the other passage.
However, there might be other things already in De regimine sustaining my position about it.
James Bogle If you say "the Pope loses office" that means publicly unless you qualify your statement. You did not qualify. My point stands. [It does]
As to Natterer, you need to be careful whom you cite if you now think he is misquoting. If you recycle misquotes you can expect to be challenged for it. It is an unusual point of view to suggest that Cajetan is "more Catholic" than a sainted Doctor of the Church who was also Prefect of the Holy Office. [I misremembered the words of Natterer]
As to the right to overthrow a tyrant, you are now becoming thoroughly confused, even as to what you earlier said yourself.
You also misquote my criticism.
Here is what I said: “you are still wrong to suppose that any tyrannus in regimine may be deposed by private citizens which is the substance of the dispute between us”.
The rest of your post thoroughly muddles the self-deposition of a pope by public pertinacious heresy and the overthrow a tyrant king.
You also misrepresent what St Thomas writes in De Regno. St Thomas is NOT merely talking about “a sovereign nation as opposed to a conquered province or an all too top heavy empire”, as you oddly put it. [Here Bogle is seriously wrong]
What he says is what he says, which is this: “If to provide itself with a king belongs to the right of a given multitude"[St Thomas does not restrict this to right by election, even dynasties have come into place through the soverignty of a nation or polity which they rule], "it is not unjust that the king be deposed or have his power restricted by that same multitude if, becoming a tyrant, he abuses the royal power”.
If it is in the power of the multitude to elect the king [St Thomas says "provide itself with" a king, without restricting this to election] then it is in their power to depose him. That is what he says. That is what he means.
You are therefore quite wrong to make the positions of Louis XIV and Tarquin comparable as to deposing power. Both can only be deposed by a higher power. In the case of Tarquin that was the multitude since they had power to elect him. That did NOT apply to Louis XIV, M. de Montespan nothwithstanding.
The Roman imperial right to remove an inferior Judean king supports my case, not yours. [Not at all, since Judah was by that imperial act no longer sovereign: and that was not a right granted legally by Jews, it was a right the emperor had conquered]
The rest of your assertions are opposed by the Council of Constance and regarded by St Thomas as contrary to apostolic authority.
Office-holders under the Crown have no right to overthrow their superior sovereign on their own authority, still less on the authority of their interpretation of “older laws” which they deem “better”. Such is merely a recipe for anarchy and defeats the whole point and purpose of government.
That is what the usurper Cromwell and his fellow regicide traitors did – argued that they were acting in the name of older and better laws. [But Magna Charta was not older law, since it was very soon rescinded by the Pope]
It is a specious argument and your use of it does not improve it.
The security of any polity is threatened by any claim that inferiors may, on their own authority, overthrow superiors.
You may, if you please, compare the Summa to a simple baking recipe but it is perfectly clear that it is not a simple text and that it is capable of interpretation. Indeed, we are already disputing one instance of it which, of itself, demolishes your point that the Summa is always self-explanatory.
You may also, if you please, consider that a response to a mere objection is a clearer statement of St Thomas’s intentions regarding deposing a ruler than a treatise expressly aimed at addressing the issue of kingship, but you are likely to be in a minority of one.
His view in paras 48 and 49 are entirely clear.
That being so, the proper interpretation of ST II-II 42 2 ad 3 must be seen in that light and interpreted accordingly.
The final nail in the coffin of your case is that the Council of Constance is against you and it is not only higher authority than St Thomas but is the voice of the Magisterium itself.
You have fought well but you must, I think, now concede.
Hans-Georg Lundahl I do not think he is misquoting at all. I think he quoted it perfectly right. [He did, but I misremembered] St Robert says that anyone who is outside the Church cannot be head of it. It may be unusual to place Cajetan above St Robert, but that is where your ideas have their support. I meant that if you should charge anyone with misquotation it would be Paul Natterer or Mikael Rosén rather than me: as for me, I have complete trust they quoted St Robert correctly. And that I recall correctly [wherein I was for this time wrong]. If anyone is confusing anything, it is rather you confusing the position of Cajetan (maybe shared with St Alphonsus, whom I have not read and who is later, further away from Trent) with what you think St Robert Bellarmine should have said. As soon as one with certainty discovers a heresy one is not obliged to regard one's superior as a pope, unless "supplet ecclesia"=supplet his superior (the pope has none) covers up his legal authority until a process.
And merely personal remarks like "arrogant" or "you have fought well" do not impress me in debates. When I asked if you could read, that was a quip, I meant it lightly - not as a personal judgement on you. Nor should you make such about me.
James Bogle But this is a ridiculous response. You say that someone did not misquote something but you have, at no point, bothered to tell us the quote so that we can judge for ourselves. Once again you claim the right to be infallible and expect us simply to take your word for it. We ahve to have "complete trust" in your "complete trust" in two individuals whom you have not even quoted. Preposterous.
Indeed, you make your position even more bizarre when you claim that you have quoted St Robert Bellarmine correctly, when, in fact, you have not even quoted him at all. More nonsense!
It is simply a nonsense.
And equally arrogant is your implication that this debate is designed to impress you. I have news for you. It is not. It is designed to show your that your arguments have no proper foundation which, in point of fact, they clearly lack. And in that respect you lose the argument and will continue to lose it until your provide authoritative sources for your somewhat eccentric views.
I, on the other hand, shall continue to provide authoritative sources as I have done all along. To show that you have both misquoted and misunderstood Bellarmine I shall quote from his De Romano Pontifice, lib.2, cap.3.
Here it is. Please take careful note.
"The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom (de auctor. papae et con., cap. 20 et 21) the manifestly heretical Pope is not ‘ipso facto’ deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is ‘ipso facto’ deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. 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?
This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.”
[St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30]
St Robert here speaks of a MANIFESTLY heterodox pope by which he means one that has publicly and pertinaciously shown himself heterodox and not merely an "inner heretic", as you put it.
And if you are still in doubt about this then it is even clearer in this fianl passage:
"Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic."
The key phrase is this: "when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works..." i.e. publicly and not merely internally. [and all external works, not just direct affirmation of a position known to be herresy]
Thus your distinction between the positions of Cajetan and Bellarmine is a false one. There IS a difference between Cajetan and Bellarmine but it is not the one you seek to identify.
Both agree that the pope must be MANIFESTLY heterodox for any deposition to be considered, and not merely privately or in some "inner" sense.
Bellarmine's position is better because his position does not depend upon a lower hierarchy seeking to judge a higher, namely the Pontiff, but rather that the manifeslty heterodox pope judges and deposes himself.
But both disagree with you. [About immediate consequence of inner heresy, yes, but St Robert not about immediate consequence of manifest heresy]
Now if you consider this "personal judgement" so be it. This is a public forum, we are in a public debate, you must expect opposition to your inaccurate statements and criticism for obstinately sticking to them after they have been successfully challenged. If you don't like the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
As I said, the time is long overdue for you to concede. It is not too late to start now.
Hans-Georg Lundahl "You say that someone did not misquote something but you have, at no point, bothered to tell us the quote so that we can judge for ourselves."
I have not given the wording precisely because I am not infallible, only the wording of the beginning. The Question is "Whether the Pope loses office by heresy" and his position statement starts with "the fifth position is the true one".
Then I have given
Which clearly indicates that back when I had access to fuller quotes, I read St Robert as saying - and Paul Natterer referred to him as having position - that once a Pope shows clear indication of heresy, he can be called a bluff by anyone [note: I said "he can be called a bluff" not that "one can call his bluff", also "once a Pope shows clear indication of heresy" - this is miles from subsequent recurrent strawman according to which a merely secret heresy could be "bluffed out"], and anyone is immediately justified in withdrawing - completely - obedience to such a no-longer-pope-if-ever-he-was. Note: not deposed, but called a bluff. [And not: "his bluff called" as in poker] Official or juridical deposing, quite as you said, is not the matter for private individuals, whether in relation to popes or to temporal sovereigns.
Unlike tyrannic otherwise legitimate rulers, there is for popes no such thing as "tyrants should be tolerated at first", because the Church cannot for one moment be sullied with heresy, whereas states have more than once been sullied by acts of tyranny - in some cases leading to repentance of ruler (King David after taking Uriah's wife, Nebuchadnezzar).
"We ahve to have 'complete trust' in your 'complete trust' in two individuals whom you have not even quoted."
Not asking that at all. If Saint Robert's De Papatu were online in either Latin or English or French or Italian, I would look it up and link. As is now, I have given you or anyone else having access to the printed book (as I had for a few precious hours in one special library) sufficient indications to identify the passage and even to correct me if I happen to be wrong.
"Indeed, you make your position even more bizarre when you claim that you have quoted St Robert Bellarmine correctly, ..."
Did I really say "I have quoted correctly"? Did I not rather say "I have not misquoted" or sth? I said I had complete trust these two people quoted correctly. I also said I had trust in me recalling correctly, but obviously I referred my recalling to the content, not the wording word for word, except those famous "I say that the fifth position is the true one" - those which help you to identify the passage. And to see if I in fact recalled correctly or not.
"And equally arrogant is your implication that this debate is designed to impress you."
In that case you can stop using wording meant to either flatter or intimidate me, whether it be words like "arrogant" or "eccentric" or words like "you have fought valiantly". Rest of that passage at least belies the alternative that your participation in this debate is objective and without any personal intent as to me and my positions, it even implies you rather than those reading this were as it were judge of this debate.
Oh, wonderful! You provided the fourth opinion, that of Cajetan: the manifestly heretic pope is not automatically self-deposed, but can be deposed. The next words after that position are "the fifth opinion is the true one" and they say clearly that a manifestly heretic pope need not be deposed before making the conclusion he is self-deposed.
"Bellarmine's position is better because his position does not depend upon a lower hierarchy seeking to judge a higher, namely the Pontiff, but rather that the manifeslty heterodox pope judges and deposes himself."
The Pope who becomes inner heretic deposes himself before God [should rather be: makes before God a future self-deposition possible, should he manifest his heresy], and therefore whoever catches him out - "deprehendit" - in that kind of heresy, obviously as soon as he manifests it [I said nothing about catching anyone out who does not manifest heresy], can regard him as - self-deposed, already [should be: immediately]. I never said, nor ever attributed to St Robert that an inner heretic can be regarded by others as deposed before he manifests his heresy. But that he loses papacy, as soon as inwardly he is heretic [wrong], and is
And as you said it is a public debate. Meaning you are free to use words like judging me, but I am free to refer judgment between us two to any and every reader. Which is why I consider you can cut out such merely personal crap as "it is time for you to ..." and so on. Not as if saying I could not be judged, but as referring it to all readers rather than to you. But if you think I am wrong, you can of course try to prove it, by quoting in full - as you have the book - the fifth opinion, which according to St Robert is the true one. Note that your quote starts with "the fourth opinion is that of Cajetan ..." etc.
"The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope."
When he goes on to the fifth position, he argues from the fact that one loses membership in Church
James Bogle You seem - begrudgingly - to have conceded my point, although your posts are and not very comprehensible.
I have already quoted the 4th opinion (Cajetan) and the commentary of Bellarmine thereon. The issue between them is NOT (as you fondly suppose) "inner heresy" but whether a MANIFESTLY heterodox pope can be judged by the Church or whether he is ipso facto self-deposed.
You have misunderstood the nature of their debate.
It has nothing to do with "catching out" or "calling the bluff" of a pope to test his "inner heresy", as you wrongly suppose. [first item where my "heretic so-called-pope can be called a bluff" becomes "one can call the bluff of secret heresy on an apparent pope" which I never said or implied]
Neither is this a matter of "ecclesia supplet". [When it comes to a heretical bishop not yet judged by the pope and his acts in the meantime, which is what Natterer and I was talking about, it is: here he puts this in another context]
The issue is of a MANIFESTLY heterodox pope i.e. pertinacious and public.
"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is MANIFESTLY a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that MANIFEST heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: 'He would not be able to retain the episcopate, and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church'.
According to what St. Cyprian affirms in this passage, even had Novatian been the true and legitimate Pope, he would have automatically fallen from the pontificate, if he separated himself from the Church. "
It is PERFECTLY clear that Bellarmine is talking of MANIFEST heterodoxy and not some "inner heresy" caught out or "bluffed" out by a private Catholic, as you seem to suppose. [I did not even claim a pope could be seen to have lost papacy before his heresy became manifest]
It is preciesley the error of Sedevacantists that they claim the right, as private Catholics, to judge whether or not the Pope is pope. No private Catholic, being inferior in hierarchy, has that right (although they have the right to discern heterodoxy in teaching which they must accoridngly shun even if it emanates from the Supreme Pontiff). But judge teh Pope they may not.
However, a Pope may, says Bellarmine, depose himself. But, even then, it is not for private Catholics to declare him self-deposed but only those who had the original right to elect him and even they, says Bellarmine, cannot "judge" the Pope but they merely recognise the self-deposition by electing a new pope.
Furthermore, an occultly heterodox pope still remains in the Church exteriorily and still remains pope. This occult heterodoxy does not become "manifest" merely by some private Catholic "catching out" the Pope or by some sort of "bluff", as you preposterously put it. Manifest heterodoxy means, as both Bellarmine and canon law tell us, public and pertinacios heterodoxy.
"Melchior Cano says the same (lib. 4 de loc., cap. 2), teaching that heretics are neither parts nor members of the Church, and that it cannot even be conceived that anyone could be head and Pope, without being member and part (cap. ult. ad argument. 12). And he teaches in the same place, in plain words, that occult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members, and that therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope. This is also the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book I De Ecclesia.
The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics [i.e. who are not heretics] are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved."
This could hardly be clearer. Your "catching out" and "bluffing out" theory is an invention of your own, not of St Robert Bellarmine.
Hans-Georg Lundahl you have got it as muddled as you can, sorry [I had contributed to the muddle as well]
Speaking of manifest heresy, I should think CCC is pretty manifest:
Conversion of Beaubourg?
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.fr/2012/02/conversion-of-beaubourg.html
On to next part:
With Bogle, Mostly, On Bellarmine, Mostly
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.fr/2012/04/with-bogle-mostly-on-bellarmine-mostly.html
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire