Sunday, February 23, 2020
Taylor Marshall & Schneider vs. Bellarmine & De Mattei
One Five publisher Skojec promoted Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s claim that popes cannot be deposed for heresy which “puzzled” renowned historian and scholar Roberto de Mattei.
The renowned scholar apparently, also, has a different take on what “universal acceptance” means than Bishop Schneider promoter Skojec. It appears to means to the scholar that a heretical pope who (apparently was lawfully elected) could lose the papacy if he is not “accepted by the universal Church.”
The 1P5 publisher seems to think “universal acceptance” is a “infallible fact” that a claimant for the papacy is definitely a pope even if his pontifical election was unlawful such as if he violated the conclave constitution of the previous pope for a lawful election.
De Mattei said he was “puzzled” by Schneider’s claim that “popes cannot be deposed… for… heresy” because the bishop held a position contrary to Doctors of the Church, “great canonists and theologians”:
“For as long as he [the heretical pope] is tolerated and accepted by the universal Church, the heretic will be true Pope, and in principle, his acts are valid… Schneider’s position is somewhat acceptable… to avoid that crypto-sedevacantism… on the practical level… without excluding future scenarios, like that of a heretic Pope possibly losing the papacy.”(Catholic Family News, “Professor De Mattei Comments on Bishop Schneider’s ‘Heretical Popes’ Text,” March 20, 2019) Moreover, Dr. Taylor Marshall in his YouTube video called “Pope Benedict Resignation 7 Years Later: LIVE Rosary PLUS Q&A” admitted that Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation is “ARGUABLE,” therefore it is DOUBTFUL, and if it is DOUBTFUL then the condition for the Bellarmine solution is triggered for an imperfect council:
“But think about it. From my point of view, the way I understand it is, Benedict had all the tools, all the knowledge, and he quit. He fled for fear of the wolves. But if you hold that his resignation on February 28, 2013, is invalid because he . . . does make a distinction—it’s arguable whether he does make this distinction—that he resigns the ministerium and not the munus.”
MARSHALL HAS (INADVERTENTLY, I BELIEVE, BUT TRULY NONETHELESS) GIVEN AWAY THE STORE: back where he says it’s “arguable” whether or not Pope Benedict made a distinction between munus and ministerium in the first place.
Marshall adds this thought as a kind of throwaway line, to imply that the whole thought isn’t worth exploring. But what he has admitted is an absolute SMOKING GUN. For if the resignation is ARGUABLE, then it is DOUBTFUL, and if it is DOUBTFUL then the condition for the Bellarmine solution is triggered and neither Marshall’s own perspective, nor yours or mine, nor Benedict’s himself, has anything further to do with the matter. Having admitted that the terms of the resignation are arguable, Marshall has no logical escape hatch from calling for the bishops to take action himself, although he obviously doesn’t see that yet and did not mean to paint himself into this particular corner. TOO LATE!In simple words, Marshall said that Pope Benedict’s resignation is “ARGUABLE,” therefore it is DOUBTFUL, and if it is DOUBTFUL then the condition for the Bellarmine solution is triggered for an imperfect council.Here is the Bellarmine solution:Fr. Elwood Sylvester Berry (1879-1954) was professor at Mount St. Mary’s Seminary in Maryland.
Dogmatic theology scholar Fr. Berry in his apologetic and dogmatic treatise which according to his introduction “was originally written in Latin” stated thataccording 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)