Pastor Aeternus, Robert Bellarmine, and the Possibility of a Heretical Pope

IF 0.6 2区 哲学 0 RELIGION THEOLOGICAL STUDIES Pub Date : 2024-05-28 DOI:10.1177/00405639241242497
Christian D. Washburn
{"title":"Pastor Aeternus, Robert Bellarmine, and the Possibility of a Heretical Pope","authors":"Christian D. Washburn","doi":"10.1177/00405639241242497","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a recent article, Emmet O’Regan has argued that the First Vatican Council not only defined dogmatically that the papal Magisterium is infallible under certain conditions but also “definitively excluded the possibility of a heretical pope” by elevating St. Robert Bellarmine’s “fourth proposition” to the “dignity of a dogma.” This article argues that when Pastor Aeternus is read in light of the official Relatio, it is clear that the council was not intending to exclude the possibility of a heretical pope, that is, the opinion of Albert Pighius. Instead, Gasser makes it clear that the council was intending to define what Bellarmine called the “most common and certain opinion,” which is “whether the pope is able to be a heretic or not, he is not able in any way to define a heretical proposition that must be believed by the whole Church.” O’Regan has misidentified which view of Bellarmine the council intended to define.","PeriodicalId":46353,"journal":{"name":"THEOLOGICAL STUDIES","volume":"133 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"THEOLOGICAL STUDIES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00405639241242497","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In a recent article, Emmet O’Regan has argued that the First Vatican Council not only defined dogmatically that the papal Magisterium is infallible under certain conditions but also “definitively excluded the possibility of a heretical pope” by elevating St. Robert Bellarmine’s “fourth proposition” to the “dignity of a dogma.” This article argues that when Pastor Aeternus is read in light of the official Relatio, it is clear that the council was not intending to exclude the possibility of a heretical pope, that is, the opinion of Albert Pighius. Instead, Gasser makes it clear that the council was intending to define what Bellarmine called the “most common and certain opinion,” which is “whether the pope is able to be a heretic or not, he is not able in any way to define a heretical proposition that must be believed by the whole Church.” O’Regan has misidentified which view of Bellarmine the council intended to define.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
埃特努斯牧师、罗伯特-贝拉明和异端教皇的可能性
Emmet O'Regan在最近的一篇文章中认为,梵蒂冈第一次大公会议不仅教条地定义了教皇的训导在某些条件下是无误的,而且还通过将圣罗伯特-贝拉明的 "第四命题 "提升到 "教条的尊严","明确排除了异端教皇的可能性"。本文认为,如果根据官方的 Relatio 阅读 Pastor Aeternus,就会发现大公会议显然无意排除异端教皇的可能性,即阿尔伯特-皮吉乌斯的观点。相反,加瑟明确指出,大公会议意在界定贝拉明所谓的 "最普遍和确定的观点",即 "无论教皇能否成为异端,他都无法以任何方式界定整个教会都必须相信的异端主张"。奥里甘错误地指出了大公会议意在界定贝拉明的哪种观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
103
期刊最新文献
Synodality and Charisms: A Pentecostal Perspective on Hierarchical and Spiritual Gifts in the Life and Mission of the Church Book Review: Guth, Karen V.: The Ethics of Tainted Legacies: Human Flourishing after Traumatic Pasts Book Review: Hadley, Christopher M., SJ: A Symphony of Distances: Patristic, Modern, and Gendered Dimensions of Balthasar’s Trinitarian Theology Book Review: Scott, John T.: Rousseau’s God: Theology, Religion, and the Natural Goodness of Man Book Review: DeMeuse, Eric: Unity and Catholicity in Christ: The Ecclesiology of Francisco Suárez, S.J.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1