Apostolica Sedes a nemine iudicatur: The Apostolic See [Pope] Can Be Judged By No One! Did the Fathers of the Church, Popes, Ecumenical Councils, and St. Robert Bellarmine, gives us the Logical and Doctrinal Tools to Understand the Current Crisis? No Couldn't Be. More from Fr. Kramer.

Guess what? You cannot judge a real pope. More from the final draft of the first volume of Heretic Pope?

“The fourth opinion, with Suarez, Cajetan and others, contends that a Pope is not automatically deposed even for manifest heresy, but that he can and must be deposed by at least a declaratory sentence of the crime. ‘Which opinion in my judgment is indefensible’, as Bellarmine teaches. 
    “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.
 Thus, the great Jesuit canonists of the Gregorian University explain that Opinion No. 5 of St. Robert Bellarmine is based on the doctrine of Pope Innocent III, who said in Sermo II: "In tantum enim fides mihi necessaria est ut cum de caeteris peccatis solum Deum judicem habeam, propter solum peccatum quod in fide commititur possem ab Ecclesia judicari. Nam qui non credit, iam iudicatus est. (Joh.3 18).", and “I say the less that he can be judged by men, but rather be shown to be already judged.” Thus it is not an exception to the principle, Apostolica Sedes a nemine iudicatur, as many had taught before the solemn definition of the universal papal primacy of jurisdiction by the First Vatican Council made such an interpretation impossible, but rather, as Paul Hinschius explained in his monumental work on Canon Law, a series of Catholic writers, and already Innocent III and St. Robert Bellarmine, see no exception to that rule, because a pope who falls into heresy would already leave the Church and forfeit the Pontificate, so that a council could no longer  depose him (in the proper sense of a juridical deposition of a reigning Pontiff), but could only declare that the loss of office had taken place:

Dr. Chojnowski: And now Salza and Siscoe.....
  With an arrogant stupidity that nearly defies belief, Salza and Siscoe say that it is I who have not understood the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine correctly, in spite of the fact that all the great scholars, canonists, jurists and theologians of recent centuries have unanimously understood Bellarmine’s doctrine in the manner that I have explained it; yet it is on the basis of their own grotesquely inverted interpretation of Bellarmine and of Mystici Corporis that they obstinately justify their heretical doctrine, that heresy by itself does not separate the heretic from the Church without an ecclesiastical censure or judgment – whereas it is plainly set forth and proven by Bellarmine that it is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers interpreting scripture that heresy in its very nature severs one from the Church, and directly brings about the loss of ecclesiastical office before and even without any judgment of the Church; and being the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, it must be believed de fide. [I think it is clear from this that both Salza/Siscoe AND Fr. Chazal's doctrines on papal heresy come under this condemnation which is "the unanimous teaching of the Fathers [which] just be believed de fide.]

  In their insolent ignorance, these mere dilettantes (Salza and Siscoe), who have no formal education in Sacred Theology or in Canon Law, and who cannot read theological works in Latin (the language of Sacred Theology), have even gone so far as to say that the above mentioned eminent canonists of the Pontifical Gregorian University have wrongly interpreted Suarez and Bellarmine, saying that they equate the opinion of Suarez with Cajetan; whereas in reality they did no such thing. What they did say is that Suarez and Cajetan were both of Opinion No. 4. Each had his own variation of the Fourth Opinion, but both of them opined that a manifest heretic pope would not lose office until judged by the Church – according to Cajetan by deposition, and according to Suarez, the logically incoherent opinion that the heretic pope would lose office ipso facto for heresy, but only after having been judged juridically by the Church, which amounts to a form of deposition. Wernz and Vidal correctly explain Bellarmine’s Opinion No. 5, which holds that “a Pope who fell into public heresy would cease by that very fact to be a member of the Church […] 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 [of falling into heresy] forfeit his power.” This is exactly what Bellarmine says, to wit,that a manifest heretic pope ceases to be pope, a Christian, and a member of the Church by himself (per se), having left the Church and the pontificate by his own judgment, and not after the judgment of others: “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, “heretics are outside the Church, even before excommunication, and deprived of all jurisdiction, for they are condemned by their own judgment”. Salza & Siscoe simplistically equate the fourth opinion exclusively with the opinion of Cajetan, obvlivious of the fact that many variations of the fourth opinion had already been formulated by medieval canonists centuries before Cajetan. That opinion had achieved its classical formulation from Cajetan in the 16th Century, so in refuting Opinion No. 4, Bellarmine zeroed in on Cajetan’s formulation of it....
As I pointed out above, the observation of Hinschius that many Catholic authors had already avoided the conflict between the problematic doctrine that a pope, by way of exception, can be judged by the Church and deposed for heresy, and the principle opposed to it, namely, Apostolica Sedes a nemine iudicatur; by advancing the opinion that the manifest heretic pope falls from office by himself before any judgment is made against him by the Church, so that a Council would not be able to depose him, but would only declare the fact that the pope had fallen from the pontificate;  and he quotes Innocent III and Belarmine as holding this opinion. It remains here only to be said, that Pope Gregory XVI (quoted above) was also of this same opinion as Bellarmine, and he based his opinion on the doctrine of Ballerini, who explained it with great erudition in his work, De Potestate Ecclesiastica. Pope Gregory had said of papal claimant Benedict XIII, “So then he could be considered, as noted by Ballerini, to have been a public schismatic and heretic, and consequently to have fallen from papacy, even if he had been validly elevated to it.” Ballerini wrote of this same case saying, “For this double reason of schism and heresy Benedict XIII (if one believes him to have been a true Pontiff), by his own will ipso facto abdicated the primacy and the pontificate, [and] rightly and legitimately was able to be deposed by the Council as a schismatic and heretic, which was not the case with John XXIII, which in the sentence passed against him was not stated. One sees by what means the divine providence employed the synod of Constance to end the most tenacious schism, so that that synod did not need to exercise any power of jurisdiction by its authority to depose any true, albeit unknown, actual Pontiff.”  Ballerini says here that if Benedict XIII had been a valid pope; by his heresy and schism he would have ipso facto of his own volition (sua voluntate) “abdicated the primacy and the pontificate” (primatu et pontificatu exauctoratus”; and for that reason the Council could rightly and correctly depose him. However, this self-deposition having taken place before any judgment or canonical warnings, (the warnings were not canonical admonitions, but were made only in charity) by the Council, the Council in its judgment declared that he had shown himself to be a schismatic and heretic, therefore, Ballerini explains, the Council did not declare that it had “deposed” him, but simply that he was deposed (depositum declaruit)....

     Thus, the doctrine that a heretic pope would lose office by himself, before any sentence, judgment, or declaration, was already affirmed and applied by the Council of Constance, in the decree that cleared the way for the election of Pope Martin V. As Hinschius observed in the above cited passage, this opinion is supported by the doctrine of Pope Innocent III, expressed in the words: «Potest (pontifex) ab hominibus iudicari vel potius iudicatus ostendi, si videlicet evanescat in haeresim, quoniam qui non credit, iam iudicatus est» – that the pontiff can be judged or rather that he can be shown to be judged”; and thus Wernz and Vidal cited above, “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.”
     Thus, the doctrine that a heretic pope would lose office by himself, before any sentence, judgment, or declaration, was already affirmed and applied by the Council of Constance, in the decree that cleared the way for the election of Pope Martin V. As Hinschius observed in the above cited passage, this opinion is supported by the doctrine of Pope Innocent III, expressed in the words: «Potest (pontifex) ab hominibus iudicari vel potius iudicatus ostendi, si videlicet evanescat in haeresim, quoniam qui non credit, iam iudicatus est» – that the pontiff can be judged or rather that he can be shown to be judged”; and thus Wernz and Vidal cited above, “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.”

Dr. Chojnowski: And to sum up, Heretic Pope? continues:
Thus it is that Salza and Siscoe have also fallen into heresy in their formerly tolerated but now no longer permissible opinion that holds that a heretic remains a member of the Church until he is juridically judged to be a heretic; and in their belief that a pope while in office, can be judged by the Church for the crime of heresy, since these opinions oppose the doctrine of the primacy of the pope as the supreme judge in all cases:
Constitutio Dogmatica «Pastor Aeternus» Concilii Vaticani I: Et quoniam divino Apostolici primatus iure Romanus Pontifex universae Ecclesiae praeest, docemus etiam et declaramus, eum esse iudicem supremum fidelium (Pii PP. VI Breve, Super soliditate d. 28 Nov. 1786), et in omnibus causis ad examen ecclesiasticum spectantibus ad ipsius posse iudicium recurri (Concil. Oecum. Lugdun. II); Sedis vero Apostolicae, cuius auctoritate maior non est, iudicium a nemine fore retractandum, neque cuiquam de eius licere iudicare iudicio (Ep. Nicolai 1 ad Michaelem Imporatorem). Quare a recto veritatis tramite aberrant, qui affirmant, licere ab iudiciis Romanorum Pontificum ad oecumenicum Concilium tamquam ad auctoritatem Romano Pontifice superiorem appellare.



Comments

  1. Where can we get this book? Is it for sale somewhere?

    God bless.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "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.” Who is the one that can make that "declaration"? One thing that the Popes and Church Fathers never mentioned is what do you do when infiltrators gain most positions of the Church and corrupt the teachings from within, while at the same time claiming to be Catholic and claiming they are not changing the teaching of the Church (thus getting around the condemnations of Canon Law).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good work! Unfortunately, those who refuse to learn catholic teaching on this will continue to wring their hands and support the "church crisis" industry into the future.

    The time to stop the apostasy was with Montini. He should have been bounced out on his ear. Better yet, vis a vis Cum Ex Apostolatus, (which is also COMMON SENSE) he should never have been given a bishopric and elevation to the papacy should have been impossible. Now, the cardinalate is packed through and through with modernists, and we will be required to venerate the unctuous effeminate modernist Montini. Fifty years of hand-wringing have gotten us fifty years deeper into the apostasy.

    The real wonder is that the SSPX follows the hand-wringing strategy even though The Great Archbishop rejected the new religion and made it clear that Rome was in Apostasy. Again, He wasn't talking about the MAYOR.

    ReplyDelete
  4. With all due respect to Fr. Kramer, all of the popes who held office after the Council were also guilty of teaching heresy, although not perhaps so that the average uninformed Catholic was aware, and Archbishop Lefebvre never said that they were not popes. He considered that they may not be. He warned us against following them. But he never declared that they were not popes. In fact, he sent seminarians and priests away from the Society for pushing the sedevacantist line. The Archbishop himself was a theologian and had good theologians advising him. Now, if he refused to formally embrace sedevacantism, and to condemn those who believed that the Conciliar popes were actually popes, then how does Fr. Kramer accuse Catholics who disagree with him to be heretics? Many good people, who love the Church, disagree with Fr. Kramer. Many more do not know what to believe with the crisis of authority that exists within the Church. Certainly this is one of those questions that will have saints and theologians on both sides until it is made clear by some act of God.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi, Virginie. You may again just be repeating talking points. This bears further study on your part, I sincerely believe. I once believed what you are being told. Quite frankly, it is not true.

      First of all, ABL never "sent priests away" for being sedevacantists. He did send nine American priests away for refusing to honor capricious novus ordo annulments and for refusing to use Roncalli's missal. Listen to "The Nine, Thirty Years on" from True Restoration Radio for an accurate history. If you do not want to pay for it, I believe you can pull that one up on YouTube.

      Second, ABL's main theologian, and a very, very good one, was Father Guerard De Lauriers. Father de Lauriers developed the Cassiciacum Thesis. Again, refer to True Restoration Radio for an exposition of this thesis.

      Third, ABL did not "refuse to embrace" sedevacantism. He said that it was a distinct possibility. He said many times that he thought it was possible that the "popes were not the popes." You are getting shielded by the Society from many of ABL's letters and speeches which do not fit their talking points. I am sure RadTrad Thomist has a good history of ABL's comments on this subject, and it is surely not what you have been told. In short, you have been lied to.

      Funny thing. I was just listening to speeches by ABL yesterday. He was not condemning sedevacantism. To the contrary, he was stating that he may have to say it was true. REMEMBER, he never met Francis. THINK. I will try to link that video here with his speeches. It amazed me and it will floor you.

      I personally neither condemn, nor label as "heretics", those who do not yet understand church teaching on this issue. I wish Father Kramer wouldn't either. I think the accusation stops people's ears.

      I do wonder, however, at how lazy people are in this information age. On one side, you have Jesus Christ Himself, and Saint Paul, Jerome, Saints Ambrose, Alphonsus de Ligouri, Bellarmine, etc., etc.,

      and on the other side you have.....Salza, Siscoe and Kasper? Is it really that difficult to sort it out? Of course a vicar of the devil cannot be the Vicar of Christ. Read 2 John 1:10 and Galatians 1:8. Bellarmine already studied and summarized this. A public pertinacious heretic severs himself from the church. Not complicated. Scores of theologians explain that one cannot rule the body from outside the body. Not complicated. ABL got it. He never met Francis, and he still got it.

      Think. Don't trust talking points. Study. Think.

      https://youtu.be/YaeVBs8whP8



      Delete
    2. You say its simple. Try this on for size: John XXIII - Wheat, Paul VI - Weed, John Paul II - wheat. Benedict XVI - wheat. Bergoglio: stinkweed (in fact he may be the "foreunner of the false prophet!"). Next, when was the moment the ENTIRE Catholic Church became false, except for 'Sedes?' But God IS giving us the moment only with Benedict's dubia resignation and Bergoglio's dubia election! Only then, when in fulfilment of Church prophets there was "the holy father" (definite) and "a Bishop dressed in white, one whom we thought might be the holy father." (indefinite) - part of the Third Secret of Fatima. Plus I've seen evidence of pressure on Benedict's resignation from bankers, fear, threats, and a zany idea you could have a contemplative Pope and an active onein his mind - one canonist said it looks like he deliberately put in there TO ESTABLISH INVAIDITY, because its manifest error in Catholic teaching! Then the St Gallen plot which was BOTH to remove Benedict and insert Bergoglio, in violation of Universi Dominici Gregis, which states if there is such a plot (of which there has been documented evidence, witnessed by Cardinals) then the election will latae sententiae (immediately) make the election null & void & bring excommunication on antipope & his electors ipso facto! In short, God has given us the MOMENT when the Great Apostasy established a coup d'etat - in 2013. There is ABUNDANT evidence. There is no such evidence occurring like the Sedes proclaim, namely after Pius XII - no indication of invalid election like in 2013. God gave us the moment - its 2013, which means Benedict XVI is the legitimate Pope (we have to choose between two dressed in white - that's the SIGN God has given and nowhere else~!)

      Delete
    3. You seem to have your own formula for your opinions of wheat and weeds.

      Sedevacantism is more straightforward because it rests on catholic principles and theology.

      Cling to Cardinal Ratzinger if it makes you feel better. Red shoes are better than flip-flops, I guess. But my dear fellow, what will you do when only Stinkweed is alive? Then, what will be your personal new theory?

      What happened in the past is a matter of history. What is happening now is that we have a heretic in the chair. This must be corrected.

      Delete
  5. I appreciate your reply and you really seem to want to help me here, but I was around when all that was happening with 'The Nine', and all of the other breakaways as well. Do not let the fact that I am a woman fool you. And please do not patronize me (poor thing doesn't have any of her own thoughts, so she just "repeats talking points"). I do a great deal of thinking and I have kept myself well informed for a while. You lost me completely after the sentence where you were explaining how 'The Nine' were handled unfairly by His Excellency. I knew many of those priests and I think you are the one with that is mistaken there. Were you around then or are you just repeating stories you have heard? It is true that he did say that at some future time we may find that the popes were not popes. He also said he was not ready to say it. He was still not ready to say it even up to the time he died. Even though he said that Rome had lost the Faith and left the Church. Wouldn't it be ironic if the devil were able to convince everyone who does pray that Francis was not pope and he really was? That would certainly thwart Our Lady's plans and slow Her Triumph down, perhaps? She asked for prayers for the pope. She insisted on it. God wants us to ask for what we need.
    I am glad you dislike Fr. Kramer's way of condemnation. I think it says a great deal more about him than that he has a disagreeable way of expressing himself. I favor Bishop Williamson's take on one thing at least, there are several groups now in the Church who all wish to be Catholic. They are trying to find their way. Things are extraordinarily confusing and The Good God will judge us with that in mind. There is no human solution and Heaven will sort us all out. in the meantime, as long as we are sincerely doing our best to be Catholic, Mass, Rosary, Scapular, holy reading etc...we should be good.
    Last thing, as far as I am concerned, the Archbishop saved the Traditional Mass, Sacraments and Catechism and Priesthood from oblivion and staved off the catacombs for a few decades, where we will surely all end up unless Our Lady intervenes soon. I wish you well, my friend.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Byzantine Catholic Patriarchate Excommunicates Francis for Heresy; forbids Priests and Bishops to Mention him in the Divine Liturgy.

"But They are Material Heretics!" Theological Stun Gun: Are Material Heretics IN the Catholic Church Anyways? No, They Are Not. Lest the Church become one of heretics and not of believers! Read the Theological Proof Here.

FULL INVESTIGATION: After Reviewing the Issue, Investigator says that A Full Investigation Will Be Needed.

RadTrad Thomist Mentioned in St. Athanasius Church, Vienna, Virginia Controversy on account of Archbishop Lefebvre video and Fr. Chazal's Comments.

Might this Help? Irrefutable Statements that Settle this Doctrinal Matter for All True Catholics. How we apply these certain teachings to this Particular Situation is One thing, the Teaching of the Catholic Church is another.

Wacko!: But, Pull out the "But its only Material Heresy" Stun Gun. Francis Denies the Existence of Hell and says that God will Create another Species Beyond Man. Maybe I will Let those Jehovah's Witnesses in Next Time!

No World War III for Israel! A Declaration.

Bernard Janzen has announced a showing of the film The Vatican Deception at a theater in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. He tells us that the director plans showings in the United States, soon.

From the "In Heaven there are No Cell Phones" file: European Youth Yawn at 50 Years of Novus Ordo Excitement. HUGH "No Religion" Count. Polish Youth --- All those stupid and extreme "ski" Polish Youth Remain Faithful In Spite of All.

The Relationship between John Paul II, Cardinal Sodano, Josef Ratzinger, and Opus Dei: CAN THOSE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CHURCH CONSPIRACY NOT IN Opus Dei, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS!