Fr. Kramer Refutes Sean Johnson
What Sean Johnson hasn't figured out is that the Salza/Siscoe
critique of Fr. Kramer's interpretation of Bellarmine is based on the
totally gratuitous and false assumptions that, 1) Fr. Kramer does not
understand Cajetan's argument, which Bellarmine refutes. (Although Salza
& Siscoe speak only of Bellarmine's "attempted refutation" of
Cajetan.) Cajetan's argument is presented in my book. I know perfectly
well what Bellarmine was refuting; and I present a much more in depth
critical examination of Bellarmine's doctrine on this point than anyone
else who is writing on the topic at the present time; and 2) that Fr.
Kramer fails to take into account Bellarmine's refutation of the Second
Opinion; according to which a pope who is put into the papacy by men is
not removed from the papacy without the judgment of men.
I have fully
explained this point in Part III of my soon to be published book; which
is that a secret heretic cannot simply fall from office in the manner of
a manifest heretic who publlicly defects from the faith and ceases by
himself to be pope. Only when the formal heresy becomes publicly
manifest can an officeholder in the Church fall from office
automatically (ipso facto); without any declaration (sine ulla declaratione), and without any judgment by authority, but by operation of the law itself (ipso jure);
as is explicitly set forth in canon 188 n. 4 in the 1917 Code of Canon
Law, and is so explained in the 1952 Commentary the Pontifical Faculty
of the University of Salamanca, (and remains the same in the 1983 Code,
as Ecclesiastical Faculty Canon Law of the University of Navarre explain
in their 2005 Commentary). Salza & Siscoe have exhumed a defunct
opinion that was totally abandoned after Vatican I (Pastor Æternus) solemnly defined that the pope is the supreme judge in ALL CASES THAT REFER TO ECCLESIASTICAL EXAMINATION , and condemns the proposition that anyone can reject his judgment or judge against his judgment; or appeal to an ecumenical council against his judgment:
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.
The definition makes no allowance for any exception; and its wording positively excludes such an interpretation; ERGO:
The Salza/Siscoe doctrine which professes against the above quoted
dogmatic definition, to wit, that papal heresy is an exception to the
doctrine of papal injudicability defined in the quoted text of that
Dogmatic Constitution is HERESY.
Fr. Kramer talks about heretics...
