Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
An Papa Hereticus Deponi Potest

An Papa Hereticus Deponi Potest

Ratings: (0)|Views: 336|Likes:
Published by David Bawden
Here we see that Saint Robert Bellarmine disproves every accusation of Papal Heresy up to his time. THis includes Pope Honorious and Popr John XXII
Here we see that Saint Robert Bellarmine disproves every accusation of Papal Heresy up to his time. THis includes Pope Honorious and Popr John XXII

More info:

categoriesTypes, Research, History
Published by: David Bawden on Jan 04, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less





An Papa Hereticus Deponi Potest by the late Andre Perlant
As soon as the sham popes had started destroying the Church, specious pleasappeared to make Catholics believe that it was not possible for a pope to preach or  promulgate heresies, for the real dogma about papal infallibility foresees that the charismof truth is granted only when a pope claims that what he is teaching is infallible. It wasthen legal that merely pastoral directions might lead a Christian flock to the poisoned pastures of obvious heresies. The next step was taken by the Econian School that persuaded deluded innocent., that a pope could enforce error., it was necessary to protestand follow the established Tradition despite disobedience which far from entailingschism or heresy became a theological virtue: isn't better to obey God than a scandalousRoman Pontiff?To-day surviving "sede vacantists" are almost everywhere preached the lastverisimilar, but nefarious, false doctrine that, although a pope may lamentably fall intoheresy, luckily the Catholic doctrine has providentially asserted that a heretical pope wasautomatically deposed at the very moment his heresy became manifest. A twofolddemonstration is proposed for this baleful dogma that would greatly impair papal claimsto obedience in normal times, and which today is an excuse for the status-quo, i. e. beingcontented with a merely episcopalian surviving Church. The first proof alleged is thattheologian discussing whether a pope may or may not fall into heresy indisputably showsthat the Church has acknowledged the potentiality. This is blatantly to bemock theChristian people, for the argument should be valid to promote any heresy, thoughcondemned as this one has been. To delude readers the liars no longer rely onmisinterpreting the definite proclamation of the General Council of Vatican (1870). Theyonly partially quote St. Robert Bellarmine when he deals with the question that was stillfreely discussed in his (XVIth) century: An papa hereticus deponi potest. (Must aheretical pope be deposed?) For admittedly Bellarmine examined what solution was to be given to the problem and answered that a heretical pope was not, to be deposed, because he would be so automatically (depositus not deponendus). By this imperfectquotation they imply and afterwards overtly profess that St. Robert Bellarmine supportedthe thesis, that a pope may turn heretical during his pontificate. But if you read theXXXth chapter of Liber II in the first tome of the complete 'Opera Bellarmini' you findthe reverse in the first paragraph, under the title 'An papa hereticus deponi potest' youfind at once what follows. "I answer that there are five solution, to be found to the problem. The first is the one Albert Pighio has given in his works (On the EcclesiasticalHierarchy, chapter 8, book II): A Pope cannot be heretical; therefore there never can ariseany cause whatsoever that may bring about his being deposed. This judgment is probablytrue and can easily be justified, as we shall see later in the proper place. This truthhowever is not certain and is generally objected to. Therefore it is worth while studyingwhat answer is to be given to the dilemma of a heretical Pope." It is then evident that St.Robert Bellarmine would not have discussed this cruel hypothesis if he lived after 1870,when a General Council fixed the doctrine that a pope a faith can never fail and that hetells the Truth infallibly when speaking ex cathedra. Ye must also not forget that as a1
 private individual a pope may say erroneous things and remain as good a catholic as anyof us who never speaks assured of the Holy Ghost's assistance we cannot be branded asheretics if we do not pertinanciously cling to our wrong utterances. To furthedemonstrate what Bellarmine's opinion was really, let us read a paragraph of the 'caputVI. liber IV, tomus II' of his treatise 'De Pontifice Romano' whose books all explain whatwas later to be defined as part of the deposit of the faith (depositum fidei). The title of thefourth book is 'De potestate spirituali'. Before writing this sixth chapter, the saint dealswith the four theses extant on ex-cathedra infallibility. He promptly discards the first twoof them.The first heretical proposition is this: "A Pope even when speaking in hiscapacity of Supreme Pontiff, may prove heretical, even when he defines a tenet with theassistance of a General Council. (the same things as an Ecumenical Synod in goodcatholic English of Greek extraction) The second heresy says: "A Pope is liable to teachheresy only when lacking the assistance of a General Council." St. Robert Bellarminecontradicts this opinion of Gerson's. He does not want however to substitute himself for the Magisterium, for he write. We dare not say that this opinion is heretical, for we cansee that its exponents have been tolerated by the Church till today. Nevertheless itsounds quite wrong and so near to heresy that the Magisterium could justly dub itheretical." This wish was achieved in 1870. Therefore the only theses left are those inwhich it is said that a Pope cannot teach anything heretical. St. Robert Bellarmine doesnot support the moderate one that alleges: "Irrelevant of his being or not being a heretic,the Roman Bishop (Pope) cannot in any case define some heretical doctrine and declare itto be believed by the whole Church as an article of the True Faith." The Saint exactly likeSt. Alphonsus de Ligouri who protested that it is not possible to distinguish and separate private character from public behavior in a pope's personality, rejects the dichotomy (manand function). On the contrary he argues that there can be but one person who is electedHead of the Mystical Body of Christ, a person assisted by the Holy Ghost to discharge hisfunction. His confidence in Peter's faithfulness is as absolute as in the trustworthiness of his successors. The sixth chapter confounds all the liars about the saints admitting thefrailty of the Pope's faith: "It is probable and piously to be believed that the SupremePontiff not only cannot err as the vicar of Christ, but also that, considered as a private person, he cannot become a heretic by believing and pertinaciously adhering to anythingcontrary to the Deposit of Faith. This is proved by the benevolent charity of DivineProvidence. Indeed the Supreme Pontiff cannot and must not preach any heresy, for moreover he is obliged to teach the Truth. He actually does so, without any doubt, sincethe Lord has charged him to strengthen his brother's faith, explicitly adding: I have begged (prayed in the Douay Rheims) for you that your faith may not fail. This means atleast; from your Chair you shall always preach the True Faith. But, I ask you, being aheretic, how is the Roman Bishop to strengthen his brother's faith, how will he managealways to preach the Holy Faith? To be sure, yes, God may compel even a malevolentheart to proclaim the truth it is denying habitually, and He once wrang words out of themouth of Balaams sheass. But keeping people under constraint would be quite unusual a bondage inflicted by God's Providence that is only using mild benevolence in all things.In the second place History affords this demonstration a practical Proof, for up to now, noPope has ever been found to be a heretic. St. Robert Bellarmine then devotes six chaptersreviewing all the cases of all the popes that have been accused of heresy. He particularlyshows that Honorious I has been the target of calumnies though he was blamelessly2
orthodox. It is then obvious that the double proof of a Popes accidental landing in heresyor worse, cannot be found anywhere in 'De Pontifice Romano'. We do find the reverse: aconfutation of the lies about Tradition. If not conscious of lying, the specious advocatesof the possibility of a Pope turning into a heretic would simply quote the 1870 dogmaticdefinitions on the subject, for these are bound to give the summary of the CatholicTradition in their articles. Here is a quotation from the dogmatic constitution entitled'Pastor Aeternus' "The Holy Ghost was not promised to Peter's successors that theymight herald any new doctrine He would reveal, but in order that they should, with hisassistance saintly preserve and faithfully expound the Revelation the Apostles hadreceived and transmitted, i.e. the Deposit of Faith." And now there follows the practical proof: "Their apostolic doctrine has been received by all the venerated Fathers, reveredand followed by all hallowed doctors, for they knew that saint Peter's Holy See remaineduntainted by any error whatsoever, according to what our Lord and Saviors's had promised the Prince of His disciples: "I have begged for thee that thy faith should notfail: and after coming back confirm thy brothers!" The crowning final definition is thewell known dogma: then the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra i.e. when he fulfills hisoffice that of Pastor and Doctor of the whole Christian flock and decrees that a doctrineabout faith or morals is to be received by the universal (or catholic) Church, he fullyenjoys the Divine Assistance that was promised to him personally through blessed Peter,he exerts the infallibility with which our Divine Redeemer has desired to endow HisChurch .. . One is not allowed to understand this as a restrictive definition, firstly becauseit is less difficult to preserve the deposit than to explain what it consists of. to pass a judgment on contested points than to repeat all that has been clearly transmitted.Secondly the context of 'Pastor Aeternus' leaves no doubt about what the catholicTradition means. Immediately before the wording of the defined dogma, we can readindeed the epitome of the depositum fidei on that point, for it is always useful to repeatwhat liars will afterward endeavor to transmute: "This charism of Truth and unfailingFaith has therefore been granted to Peter and his successors so that they might fulfill their  preeminent office of procuring universal salvation; in order that they should keep thewhole of Christ's flock away from the poisonous pastures of heresy and feed it withcelestial teaching." We must believe what, the Church has always said about her divineconstitution, and not Satan's accomplices who have constantly lied about and shamelesslyabused Christ's envoys. The question of papal infallibility was already sealed in thecapital formula of 519 which is carefully shrouded in deep silence, though it wascanonised by the Fathers of the fourth Constantinopolitan General Council and repeated by the catholic Vatican one. This formulary was proclaimed jointly by St. Hormidas(Pope Symmachus' deacon who succeeded his master in the Holy See) and Byzantium'semperor Justin I, and it accounted for the reunion of the west and East felicitouslyacheived: "We desire in all things to adhere to the communion of the Apostolic See,wherein the whole solidity of the Christian Faith resided, whrein religion is preservedimmaculate. - A century before St. Augustine had already written: "Roma locuta, causafinita." (Rome has spoken., the case is closed.) Then Rome has given a solution to a pending question, there is no denying it, for it is God's voice. Augustine repeated whatConstantine had proclaimed a few years before at the Council of Arles which put an endto the Donatists schism (A.D, 316). This constant doctrine could not be asserted againand again whenever there was any trouble to settle as in Bellarmine's protestant3

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->