Fr. Kramer: John Salza & Robert Siscoe: QUACK THEOLOGIANS -- PART IV
After I have posted my own careful analysis of the opinion of St. Robert
Bellarmine on the question of a manifestly heretical pope, Salza/Siscoe
now resort to crude, desperate, and obvious lies in their utterly
dishonest attempt at rebuttal:《It has become painfully evident,"
(according to them), "that Fr. Paul Kramer is getting his theology on a
heretical Pope (which he also uses to justify his rejection of Pope
Francis) exclusively from Sedevacantist websites."》
Anyone who has read the article I posted can plainly see that I have carefully read and theologically analyzed the text of St. Robert Bellarmine's De Romano Pontifice II, 30; and that my "interpretation" is not an interpretation at all, but is rather a clear exposition of the unambiguously stated opinion of the holy Doctor, which is totally in agreement with the understanding of it expressed by all the authoritative ecclesiastical writers who have ever written on the topic.
I have quoted such eminent canonists as Wernz & Vidal: “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.” (Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian 1943. 2:453)
These two eminent authorities of the Pontifical Gregorian University state as the best proven and the most common opinion, and that of Bellarmine himself, that a pope who would fall into public heresy would "cease by that very fact" (ipso facto), "to be a member of the Church. Therefore he would also cease by that very fact to be the head of the Church."
It is, according to Bellarmine (as Wernz and Vidal explain), that a pope, by the very act of public heresy ceases to be a member of the Church, and therefore by that very fact, ceases to be pope. It is plainly absurd to hold that a heretic, who by his public heresy has ceased to be a member of the Church, can remain in office as the head of the Church until he is judged, since no one who is outside the Church, i.e., has left the Church by himself, can occupy an office inside the Church and remain in office until he is judged. Thus, Mattheus Conte a Coronata explains that a pope who would contumaciously deny any defined dogma, "would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority.” (Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Rome: Marietti 1950. I:3I2, p. 3I6)
I also quoted the Canon Law Society of America's commentary on the 1983 Code: 《“Communion becomes a real issue when it is threatened or even lost. This occurs especially through heresy, apostasy and schism. Classical canonists discussed the question whether a pope, in his private or personal opinions, could go into heresy, apostasy or schism.” The foot note refers to S. Sipos, Enchiridion Iuris Canonici, 7th ed. (Rome: Herder, 1960) “cites Bellarmine and Wernz in support of this position; this view, however, is termed ‘antiquated’ by F. Cappello,
Summa Iuris Canonici (Rome: Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, 1961), 297."
The Commentary continues, “If he were to do so in a notoriously and widely publicised manner, he would break communion and, according to an accepted opinion, lose his office ipso facto (c. 194 par. 1, n. 2). (James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, Donald E. Heintschel; Ibid., p. 272)》
So, here we see Wernz, Vidal, Corriden, Green and Heintchel all in agreement in their understanding of what is Bellarmine's teaching in opinion no. 5, namely, that a pope who is a manifest heretic loses office ipso facto; and the only question that remains is how the loss of office would be declared: "Since no one can judge the pope (c. 1404) no one could depose a pope for such crimes, and the authors are divided as to how his loss of office would be declared in such a way that a vacancy could then be filled by a new election.” – (Ibid. p.272) There is not a recognized, academically qualified theologian anywhere in the world who understands Bellarmine's opinion no. 5 according to the totally inverted and fraudulent theological quackery of Salza & Siscoe; yet these charlatans continue to insist that my "interpretation" of Bellarmine's opinion no. 5, (which is the "interpretation" of all of the pre and post Vatican II ecclesiastical writers I have quoted), is 《 the same old, worn-out Sedevacantist argument which they based on an erroneous interpretation of Bellarmine’s famous “Fifth Opinion” from De Romano Pontifice.》
This slander is manifestly a deliberately stated falsehood of the malicious and bold faced liars, Salza & Siscoe; which has been stated for the sacrilegious and impious purpose of discrediting a Catholic priest by fraudulently misrepresenting his doctrine, and thereby deceiving their readers into thinking that a Roman educated priest with multiple ecclesiastical degrees is simply, "getting his theology on a heretical Pope ... exclusively from Sedevacantist websites."
It is the common opinion at present, that a pope who would fall into manifest heresy, would by himself ipso facto; and not by or after any judgment of the Church, cease to be pope. All authors now agree that no one can judge a pope while in office, but only, according to most authors, after he has by himself ceased to be pope by his obstinate and public heresy can he be judged by the Church. The only real dispute that remains today is whether or not it is possible for a pope, while in office, to fall into public heresy: "The authors indeed commonly teach that a pope loses his power through certain and notorious heresy, but whether this case is really possible is rightly doubted.” (Dominic Prummer OP, Manuale Iuris Canonci. Freiburg im Briesgau: Herder 1927. p. 95)
I have clearly explained my position on these and related points; and have demonstrated, according to the mind of the Church, the patent falsity of Salza & Siscoe's theological quackery. Instead of accepting correction, they obstinately entrench themselves in doctrinal error, and shamelessly and maliciously resort to yet further and even more grotesque falsifications of my theological positions in order to defend their theologically indefensible opinions.
The hysteria is patent in their plainly ridiculous attribution: 《Kramer claims that Christ will secretly depose a heretical pope, without the Church being involved in the process or even knowing that it has occurred, provided he is judged to be a “manifest heretic” by private judgment. 》Salza & Siscoe are plainly delusional. Only they who are consumed by their own malice could express such irrational madness. First, according to Bellarmine and the common opinion, it is not that, "Christ will secretly depose a heretical pope," but the pope himself, by his own manifest heresy ceaaes to be a member of the Church, and thereby ceases to be pope. The loss of office is the consequence intrinsic to the public act of obstinate heresy by which the heretic separates himself from communion with the Church. Hence, it is neither God nor the Church which depose him; but independent of any judgment by Church officials or private individuals, the heretic ipso facto loses office as a direct consequence of his own actions -- he deposes himself by a forfeiture of office that is intrinsic to the act of leaving the Church. The subsequent judgment by the Church merely confirms that the loss of office has already taken place.Thus, the manifestly heretical pope is deposed not by the actions or judgments of other men, nor secretly by Christ, but by his own public action the heretic deprives himself of office in the Church by rupturing the bonds of communion and thereby immediately ceasing to be a member of the Church.
In order to defend their false interpretation of Bellarmine's
teaching, Salza & Siscoe again resort to citing an opinion of an
18th Century author, that is plainly not applicable to the case of a
pope who publicly demonstrates himself to be an obstinate and
contumacious manifest heretic: 《The fact that the Pope (again, not a former Pope) is actually judged by his inferiors in the case of heresy
was confirmed by Fr. Pietro Ballerini, the eminent eighteenth century
theologian who was an adherent of Bellarmine and subscribed to his
“Fifth Opinion”》
Salza & Siscoe then quote the verbatim text: 《“Is it not true that, confronted with such a danger to the faith [a Pope teaching heresy], any subject can, by fraternal correction, warn their superior, resist him to his face, refute him and, if necessary, summon him and press him to repent? The Cardinals, who are his counselors, can do this; or the Roman Clergy, or the Roman Synod, if, being met, they judge this opportune. For any person, even a private person, the words of Saint Paul to Titus hold: ‘Avoid the heretic, after a first and second correction, knowing that such a man is perverted and sins, since he is condemned by his own judgment’ (Tit. 3, 10-11). For the person, who, admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or defined dogma - not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity - this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such a way that now no declaration or sentence of anyone whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church. Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, would remain himself hardened in heresy and openly turn himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him. Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made known to all the Church, making clear that by his own will he had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church, and that in a certain way he had abdicated the Pontificate…”》
After quoting the verbatim text, then Salza & Siscoe again resort to the lie: 《As we can see, according to this “Fifth Opinion,” the Pope would be issued a solemn warning by the proper authorities, as an “obligation of charity” and “fraternal correction”》THE FIRST LIE IS THAT THIS IS NOT THE FIFTH OPINION, it is a variation of it -- a particular application of it. Ballerini states explicitly that, 《He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such a way that now no declaration or sentence of anyone whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church.》It is patent from the text itself that Ballerini is saying that the heretic pope loses office by himself, without any declaration or judgment by the Church. However, for so long as there is any doubt about the contumacy of the sin, formal heresy may not be presumed. The materially heretical "pope" is still presumed to be the pope and a member of the Church; until the obstinacy is manifested after the warnings have been given. I have already explained this point in an earlier segment of this article in essentially the same manner as Ballerini. The loss of office takes place independently of any judgment by the Church: " no declaration or sentence of anyone whatsoever is necessary" Loss of office does not take place as a result of any judgment by anyone, but is the ipso facto consequence of of obstinate public heresy. If the obstinacy and malice are not manifest, but only the matter of heresy, then the pope must be solemnly warned. If the heresy is truly manifest in such a manner that the obstinacy and malice of rejecting dogma is publicly obvious and certain beyond all possible doubt, then warnings become superfluous and unnecessary.
I have said the same as Ballerini and Bellarmine, namely that the obstinately heretical pope loses office ipso facto by the manifest sin of heresy, as Ballerini says, "no declaration or sentence of anyone is necessary"; but while appealing to their authority in support of their argument, Salza & Siscoe brazenly state the opposite: Bellarmine refuted this opinion by explaining that a heretical Pope will not be removed from office by God until he is “judged by men,” that is, by the proper authorities (i.e., the bishops or Cardinals).
The next lie of Salza & Siscoe is the statement that my explanation of the theology of St. Robert Bellarmine is that《which he [i.e. I] also uses to justify his rejection of Pope Francis》This is an outright lie.
---------------------
"Mentez, mentez, il en restera toujours quelque chose." - Voltaire
Salza & Siscoe lie when they state that the Bellarmine doctrine on a heretical pope's loss of office is the argument I use to justify rejecting the legitimacy of the papal claimant Jorge "Francis" Bergoglio.
I have demonstrated in other articles that it was the stated and formal intention of Benedict XVI in Feb. 2013 to renounce only the "active exercise of the petrine ministry"; while explicitly stating his intention to not fully relinquish the 'munus', i.e., the official service and duties of the supreme pontificate. By expressing his intention to not fully relinquish the papal office, Pope Benedict nullified his act of renunciation, due to defect of intention.
Pope Benedict pronounced his words of renunciation after having given them precise qualification. Benedict stared that the munus of office is not only the active ministry, but is also, and of no less importance, a passive ministry: Bene conscius sum hoc munus secundum suam essentiam spiritualem non solum agendo et loquendo exsequi debere, sed non minus patiendo et orando. He stated explicitly his intention to retain the passive exercise of the official petrine munus: "La mia decisione di rinunciare all’esercizio attivo del ministero, non revoca questo." (My decision to renounce the active ecercise of the ministry does not revoke this.) By "this" he specified the passive exercise of the papal munus: "Non porto più la potestà dell’officio per il governo della Chiesa, ma nel servizio della preghiera resto, per così dire, nel recinto di san Pietro." ("I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter.") This "service of prayer" which he expressly retains is stated (as I mentioned above) by Benedict to pertain essentially to the petrine munus in his act of renunciation: "Bene conscius sum hoc munus secundum suam essentiam spiritualem non solum agendo et loquendo exsequi debere, sed non minus patiendo et orando."
Thus, after stating precise qualifications, Benedict declares: declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse. Having specified the precise qualifications of these words, they must be strictly understood according to those qualifications secundum quid, and not simpliciter (as nearly everyone has uncritically and erroneously understood them in an unqualified sense).
Hence, the intention expressed by Pope
Benedict is to remain in the Petrine office and retain the passive
aspect of its official service (munus), i.e. "the service of prayer";
and to hand over the active aspect of the munus, i.e. exercise of
governance, to a successor, who will effectively fulfill the function of
a coadjutor with power of jurisdiction. Benedict's intention to remain
in the passive aspect and exercise of the petrine office is manifested
and underscored by his retaining his papal name and coat of arms; and
his continuing to wear the papal attire, which is forbidden to anyone
who does not occupy the petrine office.
This leaves us with two papal claimants: Benedict, who refuses to abdicate the office and totally relinquish his claim on the official munus; and Francis, who fills the partial vacuum left by Benedict's withdrawal from the exercise of papal jurisdiction.
Since Benedict, before he withdrew into retirement, expressed his refusal to totally relinquish the petrine office, his renunciation is null & void due to defect of intention. This is the reason why I continue to acknowledge Benedict XVI as the only legitimate holder of the office of the Supreme Pontificate, and reject Bergoglio as a mere claimant and antipope.
Salza & Co. state a blatant falsehood when they attribute Bellarmine's opinion no. 5 to be the basis of my refusal to accept Bishop Bergoglio as the pope of the Catholic Church. That opinion expressly treats of a heretical pope's loss of office. Bergoglio has never held the petrine office, because it was never vacated by Benedict, so St. Robert Bellarmine's argument is clearly non applicable in the case of claimant Bergoglio, and is not my basis for rejecting Bergoglio's claim on the papacy.
TCK: Spin Doctor Salza is a money seeking attention starving sellout who enjoys endorsements from modernists.
Anyone who has read the article I posted can plainly see that I have carefully read and theologically analyzed the text of St. Robert Bellarmine's De Romano Pontifice II, 30; and that my "interpretation" is not an interpretation at all, but is rather a clear exposition of the unambiguously stated opinion of the holy Doctor, which is totally in agreement with the understanding of it expressed by all the authoritative ecclesiastical writers who have ever written on the topic.
I have quoted such eminent canonists as Wernz & Vidal: “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.” (Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian 1943. 2:453)
These two eminent authorities of the Pontifical Gregorian University state as the best proven and the most common opinion, and that of Bellarmine himself, that a pope who would fall into public heresy would "cease by that very fact" (ipso facto), "to be a member of the Church. Therefore he would also cease by that very fact to be the head of the Church."
It is, according to Bellarmine (as Wernz and Vidal explain), that a pope, by the very act of public heresy ceases to be a member of the Church, and therefore by that very fact, ceases to be pope. It is plainly absurd to hold that a heretic, who by his public heresy has ceased to be a member of the Church, can remain in office as the head of the Church until he is judged, since no one who is outside the Church, i.e., has left the Church by himself, can occupy an office inside the Church and remain in office until he is judged. Thus, Mattheus Conte a Coronata explains that a pope who would contumaciously deny any defined dogma, "would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority.” (Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Rome: Marietti 1950. I:3I2, p. 3I6)
I also quoted the Canon Law Society of America's commentary on the 1983 Code: 《“Communion becomes a real issue when it is threatened or even lost. This occurs especially through heresy, apostasy and schism. Classical canonists discussed the question whether a pope, in his private or personal opinions, could go into heresy, apostasy or schism.” The foot note refers to S. Sipos, Enchiridion Iuris Canonici, 7th ed. (Rome: Herder, 1960) “cites Bellarmine and Wernz in support of this position; this view, however, is termed ‘antiquated’ by F. Cappello,
Summa Iuris Canonici (Rome: Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, 1961), 297."
The Commentary continues, “If he were to do so in a notoriously and widely publicised manner, he would break communion and, according to an accepted opinion, lose his office ipso facto (c. 194 par. 1, n. 2). (James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, Donald E. Heintschel; Ibid., p. 272)》
So, here we see Wernz, Vidal, Corriden, Green and Heintchel all in agreement in their understanding of what is Bellarmine's teaching in opinion no. 5, namely, that a pope who is a manifest heretic loses office ipso facto; and the only question that remains is how the loss of office would be declared: "Since no one can judge the pope (c. 1404) no one could depose a pope for such crimes, and the authors are divided as to how his loss of office would be declared in such a way that a vacancy could then be filled by a new election.” – (Ibid. p.272) There is not a recognized, academically qualified theologian anywhere in the world who understands Bellarmine's opinion no. 5 according to the totally inverted and fraudulent theological quackery of Salza & Siscoe; yet these charlatans continue to insist that my "interpretation" of Bellarmine's opinion no. 5, (which is the "interpretation" of all of the pre and post Vatican II ecclesiastical writers I have quoted), is 《 the same old, worn-out Sedevacantist argument which they based on an erroneous interpretation of Bellarmine’s famous “Fifth Opinion” from De Romano Pontifice.》
This slander is manifestly a deliberately stated falsehood of the malicious and bold faced liars, Salza & Siscoe; which has been stated for the sacrilegious and impious purpose of discrediting a Catholic priest by fraudulently misrepresenting his doctrine, and thereby deceiving their readers into thinking that a Roman educated priest with multiple ecclesiastical degrees is simply, "getting his theology on a heretical Pope ... exclusively from Sedevacantist websites."
It is the common opinion at present, that a pope who would fall into manifest heresy, would by himself ipso facto; and not by or after any judgment of the Church, cease to be pope. All authors now agree that no one can judge a pope while in office, but only, according to most authors, after he has by himself ceased to be pope by his obstinate and public heresy can he be judged by the Church. The only real dispute that remains today is whether or not it is possible for a pope, while in office, to fall into public heresy: "The authors indeed commonly teach that a pope loses his power through certain and notorious heresy, but whether this case is really possible is rightly doubted.” (Dominic Prummer OP, Manuale Iuris Canonci. Freiburg im Briesgau: Herder 1927. p. 95)
I have clearly explained my position on these and related points; and have demonstrated, according to the mind of the Church, the patent falsity of Salza & Siscoe's theological quackery. Instead of accepting correction, they obstinately entrench themselves in doctrinal error, and shamelessly and maliciously resort to yet further and even more grotesque falsifications of my theological positions in order to defend their theologically indefensible opinions.
The hysteria is patent in their plainly ridiculous attribution: 《Kramer claims that Christ will secretly depose a heretical pope, without the Church being involved in the process or even knowing that it has occurred, provided he is judged to be a “manifest heretic” by private judgment. 》Salza & Siscoe are plainly delusional. Only they who are consumed by their own malice could express such irrational madness. First, according to Bellarmine and the common opinion, it is not that, "Christ will secretly depose a heretical pope," but the pope himself, by his own manifest heresy ceaaes to be a member of the Church, and thereby ceases to be pope. The loss of office is the consequence intrinsic to the public act of obstinate heresy by which the heretic separates himself from communion with the Church. Hence, it is neither God nor the Church which depose him; but independent of any judgment by Church officials or private individuals, the heretic ipso facto loses office as a direct consequence of his own actions -- he deposes himself by a forfeiture of office that is intrinsic to the act of leaving the Church. The subsequent judgment by the Church merely confirms that the loss of office has already taken place.Thus, the manifestly heretical pope is deposed not by the actions or judgments of other men, nor secretly by Christ, but by his own public action the heretic deprives himself of office in the Church by rupturing the bonds of communion and thereby immediately ceasing to be a member of the Church.
Salza & Siscoe then quote the verbatim text: 《“Is it not true that, confronted with such a danger to the faith [a Pope teaching heresy], any subject can, by fraternal correction, warn their superior, resist him to his face, refute him and, if necessary, summon him and press him to repent? The Cardinals, who are his counselors, can do this; or the Roman Clergy, or the Roman Synod, if, being met, they judge this opportune. For any person, even a private person, the words of Saint Paul to Titus hold: ‘Avoid the heretic, after a first and second correction, knowing that such a man is perverted and sins, since he is condemned by his own judgment’ (Tit. 3, 10-11). For the person, who, admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or defined dogma - not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity - this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such a way that now no declaration or sentence of anyone whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church. Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, would remain himself hardened in heresy and openly turn himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him. Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made known to all the Church, making clear that by his own will he had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church, and that in a certain way he had abdicated the Pontificate…”》
After quoting the verbatim text, then Salza & Siscoe again resort to the lie: 《As we can see, according to this “Fifth Opinion,” the Pope would be issued a solemn warning by the proper authorities, as an “obligation of charity” and “fraternal correction”》THE FIRST LIE IS THAT THIS IS NOT THE FIFTH OPINION, it is a variation of it -- a particular application of it. Ballerini states explicitly that, 《He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such a way that now no declaration or sentence of anyone whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church.》It is patent from the text itself that Ballerini is saying that the heretic pope loses office by himself, without any declaration or judgment by the Church. However, for so long as there is any doubt about the contumacy of the sin, formal heresy may not be presumed. The materially heretical "pope" is still presumed to be the pope and a member of the Church; until the obstinacy is manifested after the warnings have been given. I have already explained this point in an earlier segment of this article in essentially the same manner as Ballerini. The loss of office takes place independently of any judgment by the Church: " no declaration or sentence of anyone whatsoever is necessary" Loss of office does not take place as a result of any judgment by anyone, but is the ipso facto consequence of of obstinate public heresy. If the obstinacy and malice are not manifest, but only the matter of heresy, then the pope must be solemnly warned. If the heresy is truly manifest in such a manner that the obstinacy and malice of rejecting dogma is publicly obvious and certain beyond all possible doubt, then warnings become superfluous and unnecessary.
I have said the same as Ballerini and Bellarmine, namely that the obstinately heretical pope loses office ipso facto by the manifest sin of heresy, as Ballerini says, "no declaration or sentence of anyone is necessary"; but while appealing to their authority in support of their argument, Salza & Siscoe brazenly state the opposite: Bellarmine refuted this opinion by explaining that a heretical Pope will not be removed from office by God until he is “judged by men,” that is, by the proper authorities (i.e., the bishops or Cardinals).
The next lie of Salza & Siscoe is the statement that my explanation of the theology of St. Robert Bellarmine is that《which he [i.e. I] also uses to justify his rejection of Pope Francis》This is an outright lie.
---------------------
Salza & Siscoe lie when they state that the Bellarmine doctrine on a heretical pope's loss of office is the argument I use to justify rejecting the legitimacy of the papal claimant Jorge "Francis" Bergoglio.
I have demonstrated in other articles that it was the stated and formal intention of Benedict XVI in Feb. 2013 to renounce only the "active exercise of the petrine ministry"; while explicitly stating his intention to not fully relinquish the 'munus', i.e., the official service and duties of the supreme pontificate. By expressing his intention to not fully relinquish the papal office, Pope Benedict nullified his act of renunciation, due to defect of intention.
Pope Benedict pronounced his words of renunciation after having given them precise qualification. Benedict stared that the munus of office is not only the active ministry, but is also, and of no less importance, a passive ministry: Bene conscius sum hoc munus secundum suam essentiam spiritualem non solum agendo et loquendo exsequi debere, sed non minus patiendo et orando. He stated explicitly his intention to retain the passive exercise of the official petrine munus: "La mia decisione di rinunciare all’esercizio attivo del ministero, non revoca questo." (My decision to renounce the active ecercise of the ministry does not revoke this.) By "this" he specified the passive exercise of the papal munus: "Non porto più la potestà dell’officio per il governo della Chiesa, ma nel servizio della preghiera resto, per così dire, nel recinto di san Pietro." ("I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter.") This "service of prayer" which he expressly retains is stated (as I mentioned above) by Benedict to pertain essentially to the petrine munus in his act of renunciation: "Bene conscius sum hoc munus secundum suam essentiam spiritualem non solum agendo et loquendo exsequi debere, sed non minus patiendo et orando."
Thus, after stating precise qualifications, Benedict declares: declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse. Having specified the precise qualifications of these words, they must be strictly understood according to those qualifications secundum quid, and not simpliciter (as nearly everyone has uncritically and erroneously understood them in an unqualified sense).
This leaves us with two papal claimants: Benedict, who refuses to abdicate the office and totally relinquish his claim on the official munus; and Francis, who fills the partial vacuum left by Benedict's withdrawal from the exercise of papal jurisdiction.
Since Benedict, before he withdrew into retirement, expressed his refusal to totally relinquish the petrine office, his renunciation is null & void due to defect of intention. This is the reason why I continue to acknowledge Benedict XVI as the only legitimate holder of the office of the Supreme Pontificate, and reject Bergoglio as a mere claimant and antipope.
Salza & Co. state a blatant falsehood when they attribute Bellarmine's opinion no. 5 to be the basis of my refusal to accept Bishop Bergoglio as the pope of the Catholic Church. That opinion expressly treats of a heretical pope's loss of office. Bergoglio has never held the petrine office, because it was never vacated by Benedict, so St. Robert Bellarmine's argument is clearly non applicable in the case of claimant Bergoglio, and is not my basis for rejecting Bergoglio's claim on the papacy.
TCK: Spin Doctor Salza is a money seeking attention starving sellout who enjoys endorsements from modernists.
