The Theological Hypothesis of a Heretical Pope

Following Saint Bellarmine, as Did the First Vatican Council (1870)

Main source: The masterly work ‘La Nouvelle Messe de Paul VI : qu’en penser ?’ by Prof. Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira,

a theologian from Campos, Brazil

(Chiré-en-Montreuil, Diffusion de la Pensée Française, 1975).

Portuguese original: “Considerações sobre o “Ordo Missae” de Paulo VI”, 1970, section ‘A hipótese teológica de um Papa herege’,

Introduction and Chapter I, pp. 1–6

Preface

1.1. The First Vatican Council (1870) Affirms That Saint Bellarmine Should Be Followed

1.2. Source: Professor Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira Consults 136 Authors According to Saint Bellarmine’s Scheme

1.3. The Indispensable Study of the Heretical Pope

1.4. A Study Requested by Bishop Castro de Mayer

1.5. Who Is the Author?

Full Text: Introduction

Chapter I. The Five Opinions Concerning the Hypothesis of a Heretical Pope Set Forth by Saint Robert Bellarmine

Synoptic Table of the Opinions

Corollary: A Memoir of Saint Robert Bellarmine

Notes and References

1. Preface

1.1. The First Vatican Council (1870) Affirms That Saint Bellarmine Should Be Followed

At the July session of the First Vatican Council, the general relator, Bishop Vinzenz Gasser (1809–1879), rejected the accusation made against the Deputation by certain Council Fathers that they were following the opinion of Alberto Pighius, according to which the Pope could never fall into heresy, even as a private person. He explained that the doctrine of the Vatican Council was neither that of Alberto Pighi nor the extreme opinion of any school, but that of Saint Robert Bellarmine, who admits this possibility in his Controversies. (Vincent Gasser, Relatio de emendationibus capitis IV constitutionis primae de Ecclesia Christi, 11 July 1870, in Acta et decreta sacrorum conciliorum recentiorum. Collectio Lacensis, vol. VII, Freiburg im Breisgau, Herder, 1890, cols. 405–406; Mansi, vol. LII, col. 1218)

– Historical Context of the Quotation

The reported statement comes from the official address (called a relatio) delivered on 11 July 1870 by Bishop Vincent Gasser (Bishop of Brixen, general relator of the Deputation of Faith), during the Council’s 84th general congregation, in preparation for the definition of the dogma of papal infallibility (the constitution Pastor aeternus, chapter 4). (Collectio Lacensis, vol. VII, 1890, col. 758; relatio, cols. 388–406.)

This relatio defends the doctrinal schema against the accusations made by certain Council Fathers (such as Bishop Riccio di Mondragone), who reproached the Deputation for following the ‘extreme’ opinion of Alberto Pighius (or Pigge, a sixteenth-century Dutch theologian who died in 1542), according to which the Pope could never fall into heresy, even as a private person.

Bishop Gasser rejects this accusation by explaining that the doctrine of the schema is neither that of Pighius alone (judged ‘extreme’ by some) nor an isolated opinion, but that of Saint Robert Bellarmine (a sixteenth-century theologian who died in 1621), who admits this possibility (that is, the Pope’s potential fall into heresy as a private person, without this affecting his infallible office).

– The Original Text of Bishop Gasser’s Relatio

Here is the relevant excerpt from the relatio:

Original Latin (Vincent Gasser, Relatio de emendationibus capitis IV constitutionis primae de Ecclesia Christi, 11 July 1870, Collectio Lacensis, vol. VII, Freiburg im Breisgau, Herder, 1890, cols. 405–406): « Quoad vero doctrinam in schemate expositam, Deputatio iniuste traducitur ac si voluisset extremam opinionem, scilicet illam Alberti Pighii, ad dignitatem dogmatis evehere. Nam opinio Alberti Pighii, quam Bellarminus vocat piam quidem et probabilem, erat quod Papa qua persona singularis seu doctor privatus ex ignorantia quadam possit errare, sed nequaquam in haeresim incidere vel haeresim docere. […] Ex his apparet doctrinam quae habetur in schemate non esse illam Alberti Pighii, seu extremam cuiusdam scholae, sed illam unam eandemque quam Bellarminus […] docet, quarto loco adducit, et quam vocat certissimam et asserendam, vel potius semetipsum retractando, sententiam communissimam et certam. »

English translation: ‘As for the doctrine set forth in the schema, the Deputation is unjustly accused as though it had wished to raise the extreme opinion, namely that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma. For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine calls indeed pious and probable, was that the Pope, as an individual person or private doctor, could err through a certain ignorance, but could by no means fall into heresy or teach heresy. […] It follows from the foregoing that the doctrine contained in the schema is not that of Albert Pighius, or the extreme opinion of a certain school, but the very doctrine that Bellarmine […] teaches, presents in fourth place, and calls most certain and to be upheld, or rather, correcting himself, a most common and certain position.’

Since it was affirmed at this infallible ecumenical First Vatican Council in 1870 that Saint Bellarmine should be followed on the question of a heretical pope, we too shall follow Saint Bellarmine rather than other authors such as Cajetan.

1.2. The Source of This Study Is the Work of Professor Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira.

The Professor tells us several times in his study that he consulted 136 authors (Da Silveira, Considerações sobre o “Ordo Missae” de Paulo VI, 1970, section ‘A hipótese teológica de um Papa herege’, chap. I, table, p. 5; chap. IV, p. 18; chap. IV, note 5, p. 20), who are practically all the authors who have ever written on this subject in the history of the Church.

He examined their position on the hypothesis of a heretical Pope and classified them according to Saint Bellarmine’s scheme of the ‘five opinions’. The fifth opinion, which Saint Bellarmine adopts as his own, is indeed also that of the great majority of authors and authorities, if not practically all of them.

1.3. An Indispensable Study of the Heretical Pope:

It is a work never undertaken before and never equalled to this day, and is therefore indispensable. I think I can do no better than to accept and reproduce it, on account of its abundant and sound arguments. It will be difficult to do better than he did, but, as he suggests, the study should be extended and developed in the future, for ‘the hypothesis of a heretical pope’ has become a tragic reality and the most important cause of all the problems in the Church today… and in the world, for Jesus warns us: ‘Matthew 5:13 You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its savour, with what shall it be salted? It is no longer fit for anything but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men.’ The salt is the Church; the earth must be ‘salted’ by her. Indeed, salt gives food flavour and preserves it from corruption: the Church must give the world (people of good will, of course) a taste for divine things, the love of God and of eternal life, and she must give it the means of preserving this taste, the state of grace, until the end. If the Church is in crisis, if she is deprived of her visible head for 60 years and the number of her members is reduced to 0.08% (NB), how will men be saved, for there is no salvation outside her? This is a dogma (Council of Florence, decree for the Jacobites ‘Cantate Domino’, 4 February 1442).

(NB) Indeed, if we consider that approximately 2,500 bishops, as well as Paul VI, accepted Vatican II, while only two bishops, Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer, immediately after this pseudo-council

publicly resisted to the end, this represents approximately 0.08% of the episcopate of the time.

1.4. A Study Requested by Bishop Castro de Mayer, Bishop of Campos in Brazil:

This is why Bishop Castro de Mayer—who, together with Archbishop Lefebvre, was thus one of the only two bishops openly to oppose the heresies of Vatican II, not only during it (with the 250 bishops of the ‘Coetus Patrum Concilii’) but above all after the close of this erroneous council—asked his theologian, Professor da Silveira, to carry out this in-depth study in order to understand precisely what had happened with the latest ‘popes’. Thanks be to God.

1.5. Who Is the Author?

In Memoriam: Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira (1929–2018)

On both his father’s and his mother’s side, Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira belonged to Brazilian families renowned for their importance in politics, law and enterprise. Born in 1929 in São Paulo, Brazil, he studied with the Jesuit Fathers, first at Saint Louis College and then at the Central Seminary of the Immaculate Conception. He subsequently entered the Faculty of Law of the Catholic University of São Paulo, where he obtained a degree in legal and social sciences in 1956. He practised law until his final days, while heading the legal department of the prestigious Adolpho Lindenberg construction company. He was also a professor of introductory historical studies, and later of moral philosophy and sociology, at the Saint Benedict Faculty of Philosophy, Sciences and Letters, as well as at the Sacred Heart Faculty of Economics, both affiliated with the Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo.

He was one of the founders of the monthly cultural journal Catolicismo, published under the auspices of Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, Bishop of Campos, and the author of important studies on the Magisterium of the Church, the conciliar magisterium and papal infallibility. Among his many writings, chiefly devoted to the defence of the Catholic faith and orthodoxy, without any ambition for a career or academic prestige, we mention that some were translated into English and published under the title Can Documents of the Magisterium of the Church Contain Errors? Can the Catholic Faithful Resist Them? (The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property – TFP, Spring Grove, Pennsylvania, 2015).

In 1970, Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira published a limited edition of Considerações sobre o “Ordo Missae” de Paulo VI, including the study we are using on the Theological Hypothesis of a Heretical Pope. This work was subsequently published in French under the title La Nouvelle Messe de Paul VI : Qu’en penser ? (Diffusion de la Pensée Française, Chiré-en-Montreuil, 1975), but its distribution was forbidden by Paul VI. ‘Blessed are the persecuted’ (Saint Matthew 5:10–11, Sermon on the Mount).

The second part of this study, devoted to the ‘hypothesis of a heretical Pope’, was translated into Italian by Calogero Cammarata and published in 2016 under the title Ipotesi Teologica di un Papa eretico (Edizioni Solfanelli, Chieti, 2016), and in English in 2018, with a new chapter and an update, under the title Can a Pope be … a heretic? (Porto, Caminhos Romanos, 2018).

In 2017, Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira was one of the first to sign the Correctio filialis addressed to Francis, the current occupant of the Apostolic See, denouncing the errors propagated under his authority. During the congress on modernism organised in June 2018 by the ‘Lepanto’ Foundation, his name was often mentioned as one of the most serious contemporary researchers into the crisis of the Church.

Strengthened by the sacraments of the Church, Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira died on 19 September 2018 in São Paulo as a result of cardiac complications. He left a widow, four children and grandchildren.

The writings of Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, particularly on the hypothesis of a ‘heretical Pope’, support, through rigorous examination in accordance with traditional Catholic theology, the possibility that an occupant of the Apostolic See may depart from the faith. Counterarguments, such as those asserting a pope’s absolute infallibility in all circumstances, are rejected because, according to Catholic doctrine before 1963, infallibility is strictly limited to the conditions defined by the First Vatican Council (Pastor Aeternus, 1870), and a pope can, in theory, fall into heresy as a private person, as theologians such as Saint Robert Bellarmine taught (De Romano Pontifice, book II, chapter XXX, in Disputationes de controversiis christianae fidei, vol. I, Prague, Wolfgang Wickhart, 1721, pp. 384–386).

May his soul rest in peace. Eric Jacqmin, Priest.

Full text of the study, second part:

“La Nouvelle Messe de Paul VI : Qu’en penser ?”

by Professor Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira

SECOND PART: THE THEOLOGICAL HYPOTHESIS OF A HERETICAL POPE

Introduction

During various troubled periods in the history of the Church, the theological question of a Pope’s possible fall into heresy has aroused keen interest (1). During these periods, theologians, as well as moralists and canonists, devoted themselves to examining this delicate problem without, however, reaching a uniform and definitive consensus. Once these difficult times had passed, debates over the possibility of a heretical Pope ceased to attract scholarly attention. Authors then generally devoted only a few lines to this question, as though it were a curious academic problem that would never again become a matter of pressing interest. The undisputed possession of the See of Rome by a long succession of Pontiffs over the last few centuries has consigned the question of a heretical Pope to oblivion. Particularly from the seventeenth century to the present day, few theologians have devoted themselves to examining this question (2).

From the pontificate of John XXIII onward, an attentive observer could nevertheless note that this delicate question was gradually attracting renewed interest in specialist circles (3). Despite the relative frequency with which the question of a heretical Pope is discussed today, to our knowledge no extensive, systematic and up-to-date study of the question has been published in recent years.

This gap seriously hampers discussion of the subject. One consequence, for example, is that—as we observe with growing concern—our contemporaries generally study the hypothesis of a heretical Pope with partial or even erroneous notions of the state of the question.

For this reason, several have fallen into obvious errors and simplifications that make it more difficult to deal lucidly and consistently with the serious theoretical and practical problems involved in this question. Some, knowing only the position of a particular author and his followers, analyse contemporary events solely in the light of that author’s doctrine—and thus fail to take into account the fact that other theologians of great authority maintain different theses. There are therefore various opinions on this matter that enjoy at least extrinsic probability (4). This being so, what right does anyone have today to adhere to one of these opinions and seek to impose it without further consideration? There is no doubt that extrinsic probability yields to intrinsic evidence; but where are the well-founded and exhaustive publications that would allow a reassessment, in new terms, of the fundamental data of this crucial question? (5).

We therefore consider it more urgent than anything else to present an overall view of the various opinions held by the great theologians of the past on the problem of a heretical Pope.

This is only a first step, but an indispensable one, towards overcoming the stagnation in which studies concerning this question have remained since the seventeenth century, according to Dublanchy’s observation quoted above (6).

In view of the foregoing, our aim in the present work is twofold.

On the one hand, it is to set out in detail the opinions on this question, drawing scholars’ attention to the reasons advanced by the various authors.

On the other hand, it is to communicate to the reader certain conclusions to which our analysis of the sources and our reflection have led us, with the intention of making a modest contribution towards enabling theologians to reach a common opinion on this question (7).

We limit our considerations to the fields of dogmatic theology, moral theology and canon law, setting historical problems aside. A reassessment of the pontificates of Liberius, Honorius I, Paschal II, Alexander VI, etc., in the light of the information known today on the question of a heretical Pope, would undoubtedly be most timely (8).

In the present exposition, however, there is no room for such an extensive investigation (9). To clarify the question of a heretical Pope, it is also necessary to consider certain related problems, which we address in the final chapters of this Part II: the hypothesis of a schismatic Pope and of a doubtful Pope (chapter VIII), the possibility of errors and heresies (10) in papal and conciliar documents (chapters IX and X), and the right of public resistance to possible iniquitous decisions of ecclesiastical authority (chapter XI).

3. Chapter I. The five opinions concerning the hypothesis of a heretical Pope set out by Saint Robert Bellarmine

In analysing the various opinions of theologians on the hypothesis of a heretical Pope, we shall adopt the classification presented by Saint Robert Bellarmine. It remains entirely valid today, insofar as studies on the question have made virtually no progress over the last few centuries. For this reason, many recent authors arrange the subject matter in the footsteps of the great Doctor of the Counter-Reformation (11). Where, however, it seems to us that Saint Robert Bellarmine’s division does not distinguish precisely all the nuances that characterise certain schools, we shall suggest subdivisions within his classification. He enumerates five opinions worthy of study (12):

The Pope cannot be a heretic;

By falling into heresy, even if it is merely internal, the Pope loses the pontificate ipso facto;

Even if he falls into heresy, the Pope does not lose his office;

A heretical Pope does not lose his office ipso facto, but must be declared by the Church to have lost it;

A heretical Pope loses his office ipso facto at the moment when his heresy becomes manifest.

In establishing this classification, Saint Robert Bellarmine sought only to arrange the subject matter in a practical manner for the exposition of the reasons and objections that could be advanced in relation to each opinion. He did not aim to provide a complete and systematic presentation of the principal positions taken over the centuries on the theological hypothesis of a heretical Pope. He makes no reference, for example, to the doctrine of conciliarism, which was enormously important in the past and which, although condemned by the Church (13), reappears in many progressive writings. The great Jesuit saint did not clearly define the logical criteria according to which he arranged the subject matter. All this creates a certain difficulty in understanding his classification, while also potentially giving rise to misunderstandings.

To avoid these drawbacks, without, however, abandoning Saint Robert Bellarmine’s classification, we present here a synoptic table of the different opinions on the theological hypothesis of a heretical Pope. By organising the subject matter according to logical criteria, we seek to provide an overall view of the question and to place the five propositions, which we shall analyse later, within the systematic whole in which they must be considered.

Synoptic table of opinions on the theological hypothesis of a heretical Pope

by Prof. da Silveira — Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, Considerações sobre o “Ordo Missae” de Paulo VI, 1970, part “A hipótese teológica de um Papa herege”, chapter I, pp. 4–6. The references in the table refer to the chapters and pages of this part.

Various opinions	Position of each opinion (a)	Observations	Principal Defenders	Main index — references to da Silveira
A – The Pope cannot fall into heresy	First opinion in Saint Robert Bellarmine’s classification	In presenting this opinion, we subdivide its adherents into three groups (ch. II, section A, p. 8): 1. Authors for whom this opinion constitutes a truth of faith (Matthaeucci). 2. Authors for whom this opinion is by far the most probable (Cardinal Billot). 3. Authors for whom this opinion seems only more probable than the others (Saint Robert Bellarmine, Suarez).	Saint Robert Bellarmine (b), Suarez (b), Cardinal Billot (b), Matthaeucci, Bouix (b). Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, vol. I, 3rd ed., Prato, Giachetti, 1909, pp. 615–618; Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, XXX, 1721 ed., p. 384; IV, VI, Fèvre ed., vol. II, 1870, p. 88.	Chapter on this opinion: ch. II, pp. 7–15; Cardinal Billot: pp. 7–8; Suarez: section A, p. 8, and section D, p. 14; Saint Robert Bellarmine: section D, p. 14; Salaverri: section D, pp. 14–15; refutation based on Scripture and Tradition: section B, pp. 8–13; we do not follow this opinion: ch. VII, no. 1, p. 30.
B – Theologically, the hypothesis of a heretical Pope cannot be excluded	Stated by Saint Robert Bellarmine when he says that the first opinion is not certain		See the following points (c)	Explanation by references: ch. III, introduction and note 1, p. 16.
I – The Pope never loses the pontificate on account of his heresy	Third opinion in Saint Robert Bellarmine’s classification	Among the 136 authors whose position on the hypothesis of a heretical Pope we have examined, the only defender of this opinion is Bouix.	Bouix (b). D. Bouix, Tractatus de Papa, vol. II, Paris and Lyon, Jacques Lecoffre, 1869, pp. 653–668, especially p. 666.	Chapter on this opinion: ch. IV, pp. 18–20; we do not follow this opinion: ch. VII, no. 2, pp. 30–31.
II – The heretical Pope loses the pontificate	Stated by Saint Robert Bellarmine in connection with the fourth opinion		See the following points (c)	Saint Robert Bellarmine: ch. V, no. 2, pp. 24–26; Bouix’s objections: ch. IV, pp. 18–20; we follow this opinion: ch. VII, no. 2, pp. 30–31.
1) He loses the pontificate from the moment he falls into internal heresy, that is, before manifesting it outwardly	Second opinion in Saint Robert Bellarmine’s classification	An opinion abandoned by theologians today.	Torquemada	Chapter on this opinion: ch. III, pp. 16–17; abandoned opinion: section c, p. 17.
2) He loses the pontificate when his heresy becomes manifest	Fifth opinion in Saint Robert Bellarmine’s classification	In presenting this opinion, we subdivide its adherents into three groups (ch. VI, no. 3, pp. 28–29): 1. Authors who understand ‘manifest’ to mean heresy merely externalized. 2. Authors who understand ‘manifest’ to mean heresy which, in addition to being externalized, is known to others. 3. Authors who understand ‘manifest’ to mean heresy that has become notorious and publicly disseminated (Wernz-Vidal). Some authors do not clearly specify which school they belong to (Saint Robert Bellarmine, ch. VI, no. 3, p. 29).	Saint Robert Bellarmine (b), Billot (b), Cano. Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, XXX, 1721 ed., p. 386; Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, vol. I, 1909, p. 617. Pietro Ballerini, De potestate ecclesiastica summorum pontificum et conciliorum generalium, Verona, Marc Moroni, 1768, ch. IX, § II, no. 8, pp. 127–129.	Chapter on this opinion: ch. VI, pp. 27–29; Saint Robert Bellarmine: no. 1, p. 27; Pietro Ballerini: no. 2, pp. 27–28; subdivisions: no. 3, pp. 28–29; assessment: no. 4, p. 29; we follow this opinion, adopting subdivision no. 3: ch. VII, pp. 30–33.
3) He loses the pontificate only after his heresy has been declared by a council, the cardinals, groups of bishops, etc.	Stated by Saint Robert Bellarmine in connection with the fourth opinion		See the following points (c)	Exposition and refutation by Saint Robert Bellarmine: ch. V, no. 2, pp. 24–26; we do not follow this opinion: ch. VII, no. 5, p. 32.
a) This declaration would be a deposition in the strict sense	Saint Robert Bellarmine does not list this opinion, because it is heretical	In the form of neo-conciliarism, this opinion reappears in many progressive writings.	Conciliarists: Gerson, Pierre d’Ailly, etc.	Opinion condemned by the Church: ch. V, p. 21, note 1; neo-conciliarism: ch. V, p. 21, note 3.
b) This declaration would not be a deposition in the strict sense, but a mere act declaring the loss of the pontificate by the heretical Pope	Fourth opinion in Saint Robert Bellarmine’s classification	Concerning who should make this declaration, see the passage from Suarez quoted in ch. V, no. 1, p. 23.	Cajetan, Suarez (b). Cajetan, De comparatione auctoritatis Papae et Concilii cum apologia eiusdem tractatus, ed. Vincent Pollet, Rome, Angelicum, 1936, ch. XX–XXI, nos. 297 and 307–308, pp. 132 and 136–137; Suarez, Opera omnia, vol. XII, Paris, Louis Vivès, 1858, De fide, disp. X, sect. VI, nos. 3–11, pp. 316–319.	Chapter on this opinion: ch. V, pp. 21–26; Suarez: no. 1, pp. 21–24; refutation by Saint Robert Bellarmine: no. 2, pp. 24–26; we do not follow this opinion: ch. VII, no. 5, p. 32.

(a) We refer here solely to the classification presented by Saint Robert Bellarmine in De Romano Pontifice, book II, chapter XXX (Disputationes de controversiis christianae fidei, vol. I, Prague, Wolfgang Wickhart, 1721, pp. 384–386).

(b) The authors marked with the letter (b) consider it more probable that a Pope cannot fall into heresy, but do not regard this position as certain. For this reason, they analyse the possibility of a Pope becoming a heretic and take a position on the possible loss of the pontificate. Thus, it is not surprising that their names appear twice in the ‘Principal Defenders’ column: among those who maintain that the Pope will never fall into heresy (the first opinion in Saint Robert Bellarmine’s classification) and among those who take a position on the loss of the pontificate by a heretical Pope (according to the second through fifth opinions in Saint Robert Bellarmine’s classification). See chap. II, section D, pp. 14–15.

(c) Given the criteria adopted for setting out the ‘various opinions’, it is clear that positions B, B-II and B-II-3 constitute generic opinions, which are made more specific in what immediately follows.

Corollary: A Memoir of Saint Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621)

A cardinal, Jesuit and Doctor of the Church, Saint Robert Bellarmine is a major figure in Catholic theology and the Counter-Reformation. Born in Montepulciano, Italy, on 4 October 1542, he entered the Society of Jesus in 1560. He distinguished himself by his learning, piety and zeal in defending the Catholic faith against the errors of Protestantism. Ordained a priest in 1570, he taught theology at the Roman College, where he trained generations of priests and theologians. Raised to the cardinalate in 1599 by Pope Clement VIII, he also served as Archbishop of Capua. He died in 1621 and was canonised in 1930 by Pius XI, who declared him a Doctor of the Church in 1931 for his exceptional theological contributions (Pius XI, apostolic letter Providentissimus Deus, 17 September 1931, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. XXIII, 1931, pp. 433–438). In the following documents, we shall consider Saint Robert Bellarmine’s five opinions concerning ‘the case of a heretical pope’ and adopt the only true one. Thanks be to God.

In the following studies, we shall examine the 5 opinions one after another.

AMDG.

Notes:

Such was the case, for example, in the seventh century, owing to the ambiguous attitudes of Pope Honorius I towards Monothelitism; in the twelfth century, when Paschal II wavered on the question of investitures; and in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, owing to the scandals of Alexander VI.
Dublanchy rightly writes in the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, after analysing the opinions of the classical theologians on the possibility of a heretical Pope: ‘We end our survey at the close of the seventeenth century, because since that time the theological controversy has been of little interest, the positions remaining the same, and the question most often receiving only a brief mention among theologians’ (E. Dublanchy, ‘Infaillibilité du pape’, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, Paris, Letouzey et Ané, 1923, vol. VII, part 2, col. 1716).
Various factors have given rise to this problem in our day: first, the convening of the Second Vatican Council, an event that made all theological questions concerning relations between the Pope and the Council highly topical; second, the profound symptoms of crisis in the Church, which were already at that time a cause of concern for many minds; third, the efforts of certain progressives to proclaim the possibility of a heretical Pope, with the aim of weakening papal authority.
‘The probability of an opinion (a thesis) is that property by which, on account of the reasons supporting it, it merits the assent of a prudent man, although with fear of the contrary’ (H. Noldin, Summa theologiae moralis, I, De principiis, 18th ed. revised by Albert Schmitt, no. 225, point 2, p. 221).
Intrinsic or internal probability ‘is based on reasons drawn from the very nature of the thing’; extrinsic or external probability ‘rests immediately on the authority of the doctors’ (ibid., no. 226, point 2, p. 222).
‘External probability of itself presupposes internal probability, that is, that the doctors were led by internal reasons to embrace the truth’ (ibid.).
Since external probability rests essentially on internal probability, it is not lawful to appeal to external probability when one knows that the opinion is false and has no internal probability of being correct, even if authors of great renown defend it. External probability, considered apart from internal probability, may be invoked only when the matter is obscure, beset with difficulties, and still insufficiently clarified by the authors (ibid., no. 238, letter c, p. 235).
One should bear in mind the grave risks involved in adopting absolutely one of the opinions admitted among theologians, to the exclusion of the others, without objectively decisive reasons for doing so—reasons which our predecessors did not succeed in establishing. Let us suppose that, faced with a hypothetically heretical Pope, someone judges him to have lost office ipso facto, as Saint Robert Bellarmine teaches, and draws the practical consequences that follow. This person would indeed run the risk of falling into schism, which would be the result if the opinion of Cajetan or Suarez, for example, were true, since it requires a declaration of heresy for such a Pope actually to be deprived of his office. Conversely, let us suppose that someone takes Suarez’s opinion as certain without further consideration. This person would, in all logic, have to accept as dogma any solemn definition that a heretical Pope might issue before the sentence declaring his sin of heresy was pronounced. Such acceptance, however, would be rash, because, according to what authoritative doctors maintain, such a Pope might already have ceased to be a true Pope, and could therefore define something false as dogma.
See above, note 2: E. Dublanchy, ‘Infaillibilité du pape’, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, vol. VII, part 2, col. 1716.
Obviously, for an opinion to be described as ‘common’, it need not have the approval of theologians whose orientation is notoriously doubtful.
In refuting the objections that may be raised against the doctrine of infallibility, Saint Robert Bellarmine examines the cases of forty Popes. This number represents approximately 17% of the Pontiffs who had reigned up to that time (Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, book IV, chapters VIII–XIV, in Opera omnia, ed. Justin Fèvre, vol. II, Paris, Louis Vivès, 1870, pp. 90–119; Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, Considerações sobre o “Ordo Missae” de Paulo VI, 1970, part ‘A hipótese teológica de um Papa herege’, p. 2, note 3).
In dogmatic matters, it is obvious that we shall pay greater attention to what Tradition says than to the arguments of reason. In view of the foregoing, when we refer to historical facts, it will not be with the intention of analysing them as such, but solely to seek the assistance that the history of the Church can provide in clarifying Tradition on this matter.
In chapters I to VII, devoted to analysing the various opinions of theologians on the question of a heretical Pope, we shall consider only the possibility of heresy in the Pope as a private person. For this is the only hypothesis that the authors treat explicitly and as their professed subject. In chapter X, however, we shall show that sacred theology does not exclude the possibility of heresy in the Pope as a public person, that is, in official papal documents. Obviously, such a possibility is limited to documents that do not involve infallibility.
See, for example: Franz Xaver Wernz and Pedro Vidal, Ius canonicum, Rome, Gregorian University, 1943, vol. II, no. 453, pp. 517–518; Guido Cocchi, Commentarium in Codicem Iuris Canonici, Turin, Marietti, 1940, vol. III, pp. 25–26; Eduardo F. Regatillo, Institutiones Iuris Canonici, Santander, Sal Terrae, 1961, vol. I, p. 299, the latter two works being cited by da Silveira, Considerações sobre o “Ordo Missae” de Paulo VI, 1970, part ‘A hipótese teológica de um Papa herege’, chapter I, p. 3, note 1.
Others adopt Saint Robert Bellarmine’s classification but introduce minor modifications: Dominique Bouix, Tractatus de Papa, Paris and Lyon, Lecoffre, 1869, vol. II, pp. 654 ff.; Stephanus Sipos, Enchiridion Iuris Canonici, Rome, Orbis Catholicus–Herder, 1954, p. 156, letter d, cited by da Silveira, ibid.
Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, book II, chapter XXX, in Disputationes de controversiis christianae fidei, vol. I, Prague, Wolfgang Wickhart, 1721, pp. 384–386. We shall not consider here the observations that Saint Robert Bellarmine makes on this question in other passages of his writings.
See Heinrich Denzinger and Adolf Schönmetzer, Enchiridion symbolorum, Barcelona, Herder, 1965, systematic index, heading G 4 d b, cited by da Silveira, Considerações sobre o “Ordo Missae” de Paulo VI, 1970, part ‘A hipótese teológica de um Papa herege’, chapter I, p. 3, note 3.

25 Heretical Pope acc. to St Bellarmine, Vatican I and Prof da Silveira