The Six Causes of Loss of the Supreme Pontificate
according to Canon Law and Scholastic Theology
Table of Contents
Introduction
- Death
- Abdication
2.1. Free
2.2. Without Necessary Acceptance
- Insanity
3.1. Indeed, Natural Reason Requires It
3.2. In the Church, This Truth Is Confirmed
- Public Heresy
- Public Apostasy
- Public Schism
6.1. Canon Law
6.2. Theology
6.3. Historical and Hypothetical Applications
- Conclusion
Introduction
According to the certain doctrine of the Catholic Church, as taught before 1963, the papal pontificate, as the supreme office entrusted by Our Lord Jesus Christ to Saint Peter and his legitimate successors, is not indefectible in the person of the pope, but can cease for causes determined by divine and ecclesiastical law. These causes are based on Thomistic logic, which requires conformity between the essence of the office and the necessary conditions for its exercise.
The six main causes of loss of the pontificate are death, voluntary abdication, insanity, public heresy, public apostasy, and public schism. The canon law and theological doctrine prior to 1962 unanimously admits death and renunciation as certain causes of cessation of the pontificate. It teaches very commonly the cessation of the pontificate in the case of perpetual insanity, public heresy, public apostasy, and public schism. These last three therefore pertain to the public defection from the Catholic Faith, which entails a loss ipso facto of the office, without need of a formal declaration, in accordance with canon law.
We shall examine each one, distinguishing the natural causes (death and insanity), voluntary (abdication), and those incompatible with the Faith (heresy, apostasy, schism).
- Death
The most evident, frequent, and natural cause of loss of the pontificate is the death of the pope. According to divine law, the papal office is attached to the elected person, and it ceases with physical death, because the immortal soul cannot exercise visible authority without the body. The 1917 Code of Canon Law, which codifies the traditional doctrine, implies this implicitly in Canon 218, which defines the supreme jurisdiction of the pope as personal and ordinary, but limited to his earthly life.
Text of Canon 218 (Latin): Romanus Pontifex, Beati Petri successor, habet non solum primatum, sed supremam et plenam potestatem iurisdictionis in universam Ecclesiam tam in rebus fidei et morum quam in iis quae ad disciplinam et regimen Ecclesiae per totum orbem pertinent.
The Roman Pontiff, successor of Blessed Peter, possesses not only primacy, but supreme and full power of jurisdiction over the universal Church both in things of faith and morals and in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
This canon logically presupposes that death ends this power, since no provision is made for a post-mortem exercise over the universal Church on earth. Since they are called “successors of St. Peter,” the pontificate of St. Peter did indeed cease. The counter-arguments of the modernists, who might invoke a mystical continuity, are refuted by Thomistic logic: the form (papal authority) does not subsist without the matter (the living person).
The strongest and undeniable argument is the history of the Church which confirms this, with every interregnum following a papal death. The Church has noted each time that there was no longer a pope and has proceeded to the election of a successor, according to the procedure in force at that time (in recent centuries by a conclave).
- Abdication
Abdication, or voluntary renunciation, is a legitimate cause of loss of the pontificate, recognized by ecclesiastical law. It must be free, without constraint, and does not require acceptance by the cardinals to be valid.
2.1. Free
Canon 185 states: The renunciation caused by grave fear, unjustly inflicted, or by deceit or by error concerning the substance of the act, as well as the renunciation tainted by simony, are null by full right. This norm applies analogously to the Sovereign Pontiff.
2.2. Without Necessary Acceptance
This is expressly taught in Canon 221 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Si contingat Romanum Pontificem renuntiare, ad eiusdem renuntiationis validitatem non est necessaria Cardinalium aliorumve acceptatio. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff renounces his office, the validity of this renunciation does not require the acceptance of the Cardinals or of anyone else.
This provision codifies the traditional doctrine, as in the historical example of Saint Celestine V in 1294, who abdicated freely.
Note: although the pope’s renunciation is effective from the expression of his will (without acceptance), the rule for other clerics (bishops, parish priests, etc.) is different. Their renunciation requires acceptance by the authority to whom it is addressed.
The counter-arguments of schismatics, who might claim that abdication invalidates a subsequent pontificate, are refuted: the Church historically accepts such renunciations without contestation, proving their validity.
Abdication can be tacit: We propose a separate chapter on tacit abdication, as this is a vast and delicate matter.
- Insanity
By insanity one loses one’s office, because one is or becomes radically incapable of reigning; this is a universal rule, which also applies in the Church and to a pope. “He who has lost his head cannot be the head.” This universal rule, anchored in natural law, applies without exception to human orders, including the Church (which is a society of humans) and the Roman pontificate. This loss is not juridically formalized in the Code, but deduced by analogy from other cases of insanity in the code and from natural law and the principle of incapacity of reason (defectus mentis).
3.1. Indeed, Natural Reason Requires It
As Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches in his Summa Theologica (I-II, q. 90 and following), government aims at the common good by direction ordered to reason. A madman, deprived of the use of reason – which is proper to man as the image of God (Genesis 1, 26-27) –, is radically incapable of governing, just as a blind man cannot guide others.
Saint Thomas, the Angel of the Schools, affirms that royal or princely authority, which imitates divine providence, ceases when the prince becomes tyrannical or unfit, because the prince is instituted for the good of the people, not for his own glory (De Regno, I, 15).
If tyranny justifies resistance (as in Saint Thomas, who admits that subjects can, in the last resort and under several conditions, depose a tyrant to restore order), mental incapacity is even more serious: it is not a voluntary abuse, but an essential and total privation of the capacity to exercise the office.
Thus, in Roman civil law, which the Church has always integrated, the madman lost his civil rights and could not reign.
Justinian, Institutiones, Book 1, Title 23, paragraph 5: Furiosi nihil agere possunt, quia non habent mentem. The mad cannot do anything, because they have no mind. This universal rule applies to every office: a mad bishop cannot validly ordain or govern his diocese, just as a pope cannot exercise the magisterium or jurisdiction if he is deprived of reason.
3.2. In the Church, This Truth Is Confirmed
The Catholic Encyclopedia, early 20th century edition, classifies among the “irregularities” persons affected by “amentia, insanity or any other psychic disease”; these defects exclude the reception or exercise of orders, because they make impossible the performance of ecclesiastical functions.
Therefore, to be validly elected to the pontificate, the candidate must be fit to govern, implying mental integrity.
Canon Law stipulates:
Canon 984: Those irregular by defect are: … 3° Those who are or have been epileptic, deprived of reason or possessed by the devil; if they have become so after receiving orders and if it is certain that they have ceased to be so, the Ordinary can permit those who are his subjects to exercise again the orders received.
If a pope were to lose this aptitude through insanity, the office would become vacant ipso facto, because the pontificate requires the continuous exercise of the fullness of power (plenitudo potestatis), incompatible with incapacity. This is not a formal deposition, but an automatic cessation, to preserve the indefectibility of the Church promised by Our Lord (Matthew 16, 18).
In practice, to avoid abuses, canonical doctrine often requires an intervention of authority to establish the vacancy, even in cases of incapacity.
Claeys-Bouuaert teaches that the Pope who definitively loses the use of his mental faculties ceases to be Pope; and he explains: becoming incapable of placing a human act, the demented Pope would consequently be incapable of exercising his jurisdiction. The help of a vicar could not supply for this, given that infallibility and primacy of jurisdiction cannot be delegated (Treatise on Canon Law, volume I, p. 376).
Almost all authors share this view, see, for example: Wernz-Vidal, Ius Can., vol. II, n. 452, p. 516; Wilmers, De Christi Eccl., p. 258; Chelodi, Ius de Personis, n. 155, p. 245; Cocchi, Comment. in Cod. I. Can., III, n. 155, p. 25; Vermeersch-Creusen, Epit. I. Can., I, n. 340, p. 292.
Indeed, insanity makes impossible the free human act required for every act of jurisdiction or magisterium. Now the pontificate requires the fullness of reason, image of divine Providence (Saint Thomas, De Regno, I, 15). A demented pope could neither define infallibly nor govern, which would contradict the indefectibility of the Church promised by Our Lord (Mt 16, 18).
However, some, with Cappello, affirm that it is not possible to prove a certain and perpetual dementia: De Curia Romana, Rome, 1913, II, pp. 13-14 (cited by Coronata, Inst. Iuris Can., I, p. 366, note 7).
On this point, one can also consult: Coronata, Inst. Iuris Can., I, p. 366; Sipos, Enchiridion…, p. 156, note 31.
In another work, Cappello affirms that, in the concrete order, God will never permit a Pope to become mad: Summa Iuris Canonici, I, n. 309, p. 276.
But this last position is difficult to sustain today, given the progress of medicine and psychology. Current medicine can establish incurable insanity.
As for the counter-arguments, which invoke papal infallibility to deny any incapacity, they contradict themselves. Infallibility, dogmatically defined by Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus, 18 July 1870), protects only ex cathedra definitions on faith and morals; it does not prevent the pope from being personally unfit or from falling into private error, nor from becoming mad.
To say that insanity would not affect the office would amount to denying that the Church is a visible and reasonable society, governed by human acts ordered to revelation – which is absurd and contrary to the reason of Saint Thomas.
The principle is not only true, but necessary for the safeguarding of the Faith.
- Public Heresy
Public heresy is a certain cause of loss ipso facto of the pontificate, because a manifest heretic cannot be a member of the Church, much less its head.
This is taught by Saint Robert Bellarmine De Romano Pontifice, book II, chapter 30: it is proved by arguments of authority and reason that the manifest heretic is deposed ipso facto… therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.
This is codified in Canon 188 §4 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law.
Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus: … 4° A fide catholica publice defecerit.
By tacit renunciation admitted by the law itself, any office becomes vacant by full right and without any declaration if the cleric: … 4° Has publicly defected from the Catholic Faith.
Objection: This canon applies to ecclesiastical offices in general, not explicitly to the pontificate. Response: by logical and doctrinal extension, most theologians apply it to it. The analogical application is admitted by canonists.
According to the logic of Saint Thomas (Summa Theologica, IIa-IIae, q.39, a.1, ad 3), heresy breaks the unity of faith, separating from the Church. Suarez in De fide, disp. X, sect. VI admits that a heretical pope ceases to be a member of the Church. Even if he requires a declaration.
Therefore, according to the most common theological opinion, the loss of the office occurs ipso facto; some authors however admit that an ecclesiastical finding would be necessary to establish the fact juridically.
The counter-arguments of schismatics, who deny this automatic loss to preserve their false popes, are refuted: they contradict the Fathers like Saint Cyprian and Saint Jerome, who affirm that heretics exclude themselves. Indeed public heresy breaks the unity of faith (Saint Thomas, IIa-IIae, q. 39, a. 1). The pope, as a member of the Church, must profess the entire faith; otherwise he is no longer in the Church and cannot be its head.
- Public Apostasy
Public apostasy, total abandonment of the Christian faith, likewise entails a loss ipso facto of the pontificate, because the apostate is no longer a Christian.
This falls under the same Canon 188 §4, as defection from the faith.
Saint Thomas teaches (Summa Theologica, IIa-IIae, q. 12, a. 1) that apostasy is a vice opposed to faith.
It makes membership in the Church impossible, because one enters the Church through faith. Indeed the priest questions the catechumen (the baptizandus) at the time of admission to the catechumenate, before the exorcisms and baptism proper. The priest asks: Quid petis ab Ecclesia Dei? (What do you ask of the Church of God?). The catechumen then answers: Fidem! (Faith!).
Apostasy is more serious than heresy. Saint Thomas teaches indeed: Apostasia importat quandam totalem recessum a fide. (II-II, q.12, a.1) Apostasy is the total abandonment of the faith. Whereas heresy is only the abandonment of one or some truths of the deposit of faith. Therefore: if public heresy entails the loss of the pontificate according to the common opinion, a fortiori (all the more so) public apostasy would entail it as well.
The counter-arguments of heretics, who minimize apostasy to justify ecumenical compromises, are refuted by the fixed doctrine: the Church does not tolerate apostates in her bosom.
- Public Schism
6.1. Canon Law
Public schism, refusal of obedience to legitimate authority or rupture of unity, also causes the loss of the pontificate if it is manifest, because it is equivalent to a defection (canon 188 §4).
6.2. Theology
Saint Thomas defines schism: Schismatici proprie dicuntur qui propria sponte et intentione ab unitate Ecclesiae separantur. (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 39, a. 1, corpus) Those are properly called schismatics who, of their own will and with deliberate intention, separate themselves from the unity of the Church.
Coronata formulates the same doctrine in canonical language: Schisma est recusatio subiectionis Summo Pontifici aut communionis cum membris Ecclesiae ei subiectis. (Inst. Iuris Canonici, t. I) Schism is the refusal of subjection to the Sovereign Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
Therefore, if a pope himself refused the constitutive principles of ecclesiastical unity, either by rejecting the divine constitution of the Church, or by voluntarily breaking communion with those who remain united to him according to this same constitution, the question of his permanence as a member of the Church would then arise.
Now, according to the classical principle recalled by Saint Robert Bellarmine: Non potest esse caput qui non est membrum. (De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30.) He cannot be the head who is not a member.
A man who would cease to belong to the visible body of the Church could therefore no longer be its visible head. This is why many theologians apply to manifest schism the same principles as to manifest heresy.
6.3. Historical and Hypothetical Applications
Declaration of a doctrine contrary to defined teachings: If the pope proclaimed that the dogma of papal infallibility, defined by the First Vatican Council, is not obligatory, and convened a purely “pastoral” council, he would create a doctrinal division that would push faithful and bishops to break communion with him.
Rejection of the authority of the pope or bishops: A pope who would depose his tiara, sell it at auction in the presence of declared schismatics (like Paul VI), and announce that bishops are no longer bound to submit to the primacy of Rome, or that they must abandon the decisions of the Synod of Bishops of a province of the Church, would create a fracture between the Holy See and certain bishops.
Establishment of a new liturgy or rite excluding existing rites: If the pope imposed a new liturgical rite (a sort of “novus ordo”) by prohibiting the celebration of the Latin rite in force for centuries (like Paul VI), he would provoke the rupture of liturgical communion with those who refuse this change.
Massive excommunication of clerics or faithful for doctrinal disagreement: Ordering the automatic excommunication of all bishops who contest a papal decision, without offering a path of reconciliation, would be equivalent to “refusing submission to the jurisdiction of the pope,” which constitutes a schismatic act.
Creation of a “parallel Church”: A pope who, under the pretext of reforming the Church, would establish a distinct juridical structure, with its own canons and its own magisterium (the so-called “international floating dioceses”), and would invite the faithful to adhere to it, would reproduce the phenomenon of antipopes and historical schisms.
Denial of communion with the Eastern provinces: If he declared that the Eastern Catholic provinces are no longer in communion with Rome, for the simple reason that they do not have the Latin rite, he breaks the visible unity of the universal Church.
Modification of canon law without consultation: Promulgating a new canon law that annuls the obligations of communion with the Holy See, or that makes obligatory the rejection of certain magisterial teachings, would be a violation of the principle that all the faithful are bound to observe the legitimate constitutions and decrees of the Church.
These scenarios illustrate how, by their words or acts, popes could engender a schism: they attack the unity of faith, charity and jurisdiction that characterizes the Catholic Church.
- Conclusion
These causes guarantee the divine protection of the Church, because God does not permit an incapable person, or a heretic, apostate or schismatic to reign validly.