Sunday, February 23, 2020

Doctor of the Church St. Bellarmine & Bp. Gracida: "A Doubtful Pope is no Pope"

Bishop Rene Gracida summed the situation we are in with the doubtfulness of the Pope Benedict XVI resignation:

"[I]f the [Pope Benedict XVI] Renunciation is doubtful, then in virtue of canon 332 §2, it is invalid for lack of due manifestation"
[https://abyssum.org/ ]

Moreover, it appears that if someone has definite solid reasons from canon law to doubt the validity of Pope Benedict XVI's resignation one can it appears possibly commit a sin if he doesn't resolve that doubt before claiming Francis is definitely pope.

The important theological book "Rodriguez and the Confession of Doubtful Mortal Sins" in page 225 says:

"If one does not resolve the doubt and deliberately does the action anyhow, it means that he is willing to offend God gravely, and therefore he commits a mortal sin."
(Google: Theological Studies -cdn- 1 PDF by U. Adelman - Cited by 1 Related articles)

Moreover, Dogmatic theology scholar Fr. Elwood Sylvester Berry (1879-1954), who was professor at Mount St. Mary's Seminary in Maryland, in his apologetic and dogmatic treatise which according to his introduction "was originally written in Latin" stated that according to Doctor of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine: "a doubtful pope is no pope... 'if a papal election is doubtful for any reason'" therefore a imperfect council of bishops is needed:

"Hence the saying of Bellarmine: a doubtful pope is no pope. 'Therefore,' continues the Cardinal, 'if a papal election is really doubtful for any reason, the elected should resign, so that a new election may be held. But if he refuses to resign, it becomes the duty of the bishops to adjust the matter, for although the bishops without the pope cannot define dogma nor make laws for the universal Church, they can and ought to decide, when occasion demands, who is the legitimate pope; and if the matter be doubtful, they should provide for the Church by having a legitimate and undoubted pastor elected. That is what the Council of Constance rightly did.'" 8
(The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, By Rev. E. Sylvester Berry,  Page 229, Note 8: Bellarmine, "De Concilio, ii, 19)

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

3 comments:

nazareusrex said...

Un hereje no es Papa; ni tampoco es legítimo un 'Papa' que se pone en duda.

Wernz-Vidal - Derecho Canónico de 1943


“A través de notoria y difundida abiertamente herejía, el Romano Pontífice, en caso de caer en herejía, por ese mismo hecho (ipso facto) se considera privado de la potestad de jurisdicción, incluso antes de cualquier sentencia declaratoria por la Iglesia ... Un Papa que cae en la herejía pública dejaría ipso facto de ser miembro de la Iglesia; por lo tanto, él también dejaría de ser cabeza de la Iglesia "Y también: "Un Papa dudoso no es papa.”

nazareusrex said...

Bergoglio was disqualified to be Pope because he had already apostatized the Catholic faith in Argentina, where he promoted the Eucharistic sacrilege for adulterous and homosexuals, where he allowed gay adoption, where he was already a Freemason and a Marxist, etc.
“Those capable of being validly elected are all who are not prohibited by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law… Those who are barred as incapable of being validly elected are all women, children who have not reached the age of reason; also, those afflicted with habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics, schismatics…” (Wernz-Vidal, Jus Canonicum 1:415)

nazareusrex said...

Pope Paul IV declared that the election of a heretic isinvalid, even if it takes place with the unanimous consent of the cardinals and is accepted by all. https://www.virgosacrata.com/cum-ex-apostolatus-officio.html