The R&R insist that mere individual laymen cannot judge the pope based on their own personal judgement and that an imperfect council would have to do it. However, using the language "laymen" is an attempt to draw a distinction between laymen and clerics, but this distinction is not warranted in this case because making a judgment based on manifest data is proper to all people and not just to a cleric. They would rightly admit that a single cleric, regardless of power (bishop or cardinal) could not affect the loss of office also, and that, in their argument, an imperfect council would still be needed. All this to say that the entire argument about needing an imperfect council to depose a pope is moot and ridiculous based simply on the fact that each member of the imperfect council would have to come to and render a personal judgement prior to adding it to the whole of the others, which would then become the judgment of the imperfect council. So no matter how you try to get around it, individual men still need to come to their own personal judgement FIRST before casting it with the lot.
Stephen Speray in his blog argued against Mr. Salza and Sisocoe's opinion that St. Bellarmine and Suarez held that it was necessary for a declaration by the Church before the See should become vacant. First is S&S's statement:
'According to John of St. Thomas, who studied Bellarmine at length regarding this question, and who spoke Latin fluently, Bellarmine was in agreement with Suarez that the pope must be declared incorrigible (declaratory sentence) by the Church before he loses his office. John of St. Thomas addressed this point in his treatise on the deposition of a heretical pope. He wrote:
“without qualification, the Lord Christ is the only superior with respect to the pope. And for that reason, Bellarmine and Suarez judge that the pope, by the very fact that he is a manifest heretic and has been declared incorrigible, is deposed immediately by the Lord Christ, not by some other authority of the Church.” [20]
So John of St. Thomas, who himself was a young contemporary of both Bellarmine and Suarez, and who wasn’t limited to reading a few quotations from Bellarmine posted on sedevacantist websites, states that Bellarmine agrees with Suarez in holding that a manifestly heretical pope must be “declared incorrigible” before being deposed immediately by Christ. [3]
Then Steve Speray's rebuttal:
What Siscoe doesn’t tell his readers is that John of St. Thomas criticizes Bellarmine for rejecting the need for two warnings. That’s right, the very person Siscoe (and Salza) uses as the primary source against sedevacantists, supports sedevacantists on Bellarmine.
John of St. Thomas wrote:
“Bellarmine objected that the Apostle [St Paul] says that we must avoid the heretic after two admonitions, that is to say, after he clearly appears pertinacious, before any excommunication and sentence of a judge, as St. Jerome says in his commentary, for heretics separate themselves by the heresy itself (per se) from the Body of Christ.
And here is his reasoning:
• A non-Christian cannot be Pope, for he who is not a member [of the Church] cannot be the head; now, a heretic is not a Christian, as commonly say the Fathers; thus, a manifest heretic cannot be Pope….
I answer [to Bellarmine] that the heretic should be avoided after two admonitions legally made and with the Church’s authority, and not according to private judgment. [4]
According to John of St. Thomas, Siscoe is wrong about Bellarmine.
John of St. Thomas got his information from Bellarmine’s De Romano Pontifice. If Bellarmine taught that the heretical pope needed to be declared incorrigible, then Siscoe would have cited Bellarmine, not John of St. Thomas. John of St. Thomas probably just lumped Suarez’s opinion with Bellarmine’s, because you won’t find Bellarmine saying a declaration is needed before the pope loses office.
John of St. Thomas is also saying that Bellamine’s position requires private judgment for which Salza/Siscoe condemn sedevacantists. How does private judgment fit in Bellarmine’s position if he taught that a declaration by the Church happens first?
The R&R insist that mere individual laymen cannot judge the pope based on their own personal judgement and that an imperfect council would have to do it. However, using the language "laymen" is an attempt to draw a distinction between laymen and clerics, but this distinction is not warranted in this case because making a judgment based on manifest data is proper to all people and not just to a cleric. They would rightly admit that a single cleric, regardless of power (bishop or cardinal) could not affect the loss of office also, and that, in their argument, an imperfect council would still be needed. All this to say that the entire argument about needing an imperfect council to depose a pope is moot and ridiculous based simply on the fact that each member of the imperfect council would have to come to and render a personal judgement prior to adding it to the whole of the others, which would then become the judgment of the imperfect council. So no matter how you try to get around it, individual men still need to come to their own personal judgement FIRST before casting it with the lot.
Pax et bonum +
michael
Absolutely. Well put.
Stephen Speray in his blog argued against Mr. Salza and Sisocoe's opinion that St. Bellarmine and Suarez held that it was necessary for a declaration by the Church before the See should become vacant. First is S&S's statement:
'According to John of St. Thomas, who studied Bellarmine at length regarding this question, and who spoke Latin fluently, Bellarmine was in agreement with Suarez that the pope must be declared incorrigible (declaratory sentence) by the Church before he loses his office. John of St. Thomas addressed this point in his treatise on the deposition of a heretical pope. He wrote:
“without qualification, the Lord Christ is the only superior with respect to the pope. And for that reason, Bellarmine and Suarez judge that the pope, by the very fact that he is a manifest heretic and has been declared incorrigible, is deposed immediately by the Lord Christ, not by some other authority of the Church.” [20]
So John of St. Thomas, who himself was a young contemporary of both Bellarmine and Suarez, and who wasn’t limited to reading a few quotations from Bellarmine posted on sedevacantist websites, states that Bellarmine agrees with Suarez in holding that a manifestly heretical pope must be “declared incorrigible” before being deposed immediately by Christ. [3]
Then Steve Speray's rebuttal:
What Siscoe doesn’t tell his readers is that John of St. Thomas criticizes Bellarmine for rejecting the need for two warnings. That’s right, the very person Siscoe (and Salza) uses as the primary source against sedevacantists, supports sedevacantists on Bellarmine.
John of St. Thomas wrote:
“Bellarmine objected that the Apostle [St Paul] says that we must avoid the heretic after two admonitions, that is to say, after he clearly appears pertinacious, before any excommunication and sentence of a judge, as St. Jerome says in his commentary, for heretics separate themselves by the heresy itself (per se) from the Body of Christ.
And here is his reasoning:
• A non-Christian cannot be Pope, for he who is not a member [of the Church] cannot be the head; now, a heretic is not a Christian, as commonly say the Fathers; thus, a manifest heretic cannot be Pope….
I answer [to Bellarmine] that the heretic should be avoided after two admonitions legally made and with the Church’s authority, and not according to private judgment. [4]
According to John of St. Thomas, Siscoe is wrong about Bellarmine.
John of St. Thomas got his information from Bellarmine’s De Romano Pontifice. If Bellarmine taught that the heretical pope needed to be declared incorrigible, then Siscoe would have cited Bellarmine, not John of St. Thomas. John of St. Thomas probably just lumped Suarez’s opinion with Bellarmine’s, because you won’t find Bellarmine saying a declaration is needed before the pope loses office.
John of St. Thomas is also saying that Bellamine’s position requires private judgment for which Salza/Siscoe condemn sedevacantists. How does private judgment fit in Bellarmine’s position if he taught that a declaration by the Church happens first?