04.04.2013 Views

Concerning an SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism - Novus Ordo Watch

Concerning an SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism - Novus Ordo Watch

Concerning an SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism - Novus Ordo Watch

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

But there is a further point to make in relati<strong>on</strong> to this claim, which is that it omits to menti<strong>on</strong> the<br />

other half of the Bellarmine positi<strong>on</strong>, viz. that not <strong>on</strong>ly would a Pope who became a heretic lose his<br />

office ipso facto, but also that if a heretic claimed the papacy his claim would be null from the<br />

beginning. Would Fr. Boulet (or da Silveira) argue that Our Lord would not <strong>on</strong>ly sustain jurisdicti<strong>on</strong><br />

in a bishop who disappeared into heresy, but also that He would provide ordinary jurisdicti<strong>on</strong> to a<br />

heretic who was somehow appointed to <str<strong>on</strong>g>an</str<strong>on</strong>g> episcopal office?<br />

b) In relati<strong>on</strong> to the papacy, it is alleged by Fr. Boulet that Our Lord Jesus Christ would maintain the<br />

jurisdicti<strong>on</strong> of a heretic “Pope” for some period after his disappear<str<strong>on</strong>g>an</str<strong>on</strong>g>ce into heresy. He writes,<br />

“According to LNM [i.e. da Silveira], Christ Himself could maintain, at least for a while, the<br />

jurisdicti<strong>on</strong> of a heretical Pope.” Once again, this is c<strong>on</strong>trary to Bellarmine, <str<strong>on</strong>g>an</str<strong>on</strong>g>d omits menti<strong>on</strong> of the<br />

questi<strong>on</strong> of a heretic who is elected Pope. But da Silveira offers <str<strong>on</strong>g>an</str<strong>on</strong>g> interesting proof for it. Let’s<br />

read the entire proof <str<strong>on</strong>g>an</str<strong>on</strong>g>d c<strong>on</strong>sider its validity.<br />

We judge that the revealed major premise from which we must start is the dogma that the<br />

church is a visible <str<strong>on</strong>g>an</str<strong>on</strong>g>d perfect society. As a minor premise, we must put the principle, drawn<br />

from nature itself, according to which the events of the public <str<strong>on</strong>g>an</str<strong>on</strong>g>d official life of a visible <str<strong>on</strong>g>an</str<strong>on</strong>g>d<br />

perfect society ought to be notorious <str<strong>on</strong>g>an</str<strong>on</strong>g>d publicly divulged. Thence <strong>on</strong>e would c<strong>on</strong>clude<br />

that the eventual destituti<strong>on</strong> of the chief of the Church would not be a juridically<br />

c<strong>on</strong>summated fact as l<strong>on</strong>g as it did not become notorious <str<strong>on</strong>g>an</str<strong>on</strong>g>d publicly divulged.<br />

In scholastic form, we would be able to draw up the following sorites:<br />

• The Church is a visible <str<strong>on</strong>g>an</str<strong>on</strong>g>d perfect society.<br />

• Now, the facts of the official <str<strong>on</strong>g>an</str<strong>on</strong>g>d public life of a visible <str<strong>on</strong>g>an</str<strong>on</strong>g>d perfect society, <strong>on</strong>ly become<br />

juridically c<strong>on</strong>summated when they are notorious <str<strong>on</strong>g>an</str<strong>on</strong>g>d publicly divulged.<br />

• Now, the loss of the Papacy is a fact of the public <str<strong>on</strong>g>an</str<strong>on</strong>g>d official life of the Church.<br />

• C<strong>on</strong>sequently, the loss of the Papacy <strong>on</strong>ly becomes juridically c<strong>on</strong>summated when it is<br />

notorious <str<strong>on</strong>g>an</str<strong>on</strong>g>d publicly divulged.<br />

24

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!