The Theological Hypothesis

of a Heretical Pope

Following Saint Bellarmine, as Vatican I (1870)

Source: The magisterial work « The New Mass of Paul VI: What to Make of It? »

by Prof. Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, theologian of Campos, Brazil.

 

Table of contents

1. Preface  

   1.1. The Council Vatican I (1870) affirms that it follows Saint Bellarmine  

   1.2. Source: Professor Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira consulted 136 authors according to the schema of St Bellarmine  

   1.3. The unavoidable study on the heretical pope  

   1.4. Study requested by Mgr Castro de Mayer  

   1.5. Who is the author  

2. Full text : Introduction  
3. Chapter I. The five opinions concerning the hypothesis of a heretical Pope set forth by Saint Robert Bellarmine  

Synoptic table of the opinions  

Corollary: Memoir on Saint Robert Bellarmine  

Notes and references

1. Preface

1.1. The Council Vatican I (1870) affirms that it follows Saint Bellarmine

At the July session of the First Vatican Council, the general rapporteur, Mgr Vinzenz Gasser (1809-1879), rejected the accusation made against the Deputation by certain conciliar Fathers, according to which 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 Vatican Council was neither that of Alberto Pighius, nor the extreme opinion of any school, but indeed that of Saint Robert Bellarmine, who admits this possibility in his Controversies. (Mansi, vol. 52, col. 1218)

– Historical context of the quotation

The declaration reported comes from the official intervention (called relatio) delivered on 11 July 1870 by Mgr Vincent Gasser (Bishop of Brixen, general rapporteur of the Deputation of Faith), during the 45th general congregation of the Council, with a view to the definition of the dogma of papal infallibility (constitution Pastor aeternus, chapter 4).

This relatio defends the doctrinal schema against the accusations made by certain conciliar Fathers (such as Mgr Riccio di Mondragone), who reproached the Deputation for following the “extreme” opinion of Alberto Pighius (or Pigge, 16th-century theologian, died in 1542), according to which the Pope could never fall into heresy, even as a private person.

Mgr 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 indeed that of Saint Robert Bellarmine (16th-century theologian, died in 1621), who admits this possibility (that is, the potential fall of the Pope into heresy as a private person, without this affecting his infallible office).

– The original text of Mgr Gasser’s relatio

Here is the pertinent extract from the relatio:

Latin original (taken from Collectio Lacensis, vol. 7, coll. 530-531): “Quod ad doctrinam, quae in Schemate proponitur, attinet, iniuste Deputatio accusatur, quasi velimus extremam cuiusdam scholae theologorum opinionem, videlicet Alberti Pighii, ad dogmaticam dignitatem evolvere. Nam Alberti Pighii sententia, quam Bellarminus quidem piæ et probabiles nominat, fuit, Pontificem ut personam privatam aut doctorem privatum ex quadam ignorantia errare posse, sed nunquam in haeresim incidere aut haeresim docere posse. […] De sententia autem Bellarmini haec dicuntur. […] At doctrina, quae in Schemate proponitur, nec Alberti Pighii est, nec alicuius scholae extremæ, sed Bellarmini, qui hanc possibilitatem in suis Controversiis admittit.”

Literal translation: “As regards the doctrine which is proposed in the Schema, the Deputation is unjustly accused, as if we wished to raise to dogmatic dignity the extreme opinion of a certain school of theologians, namely that of Alberto Pighius. For the opinion of Alberto Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed names pious and probable, was that the Pontiff, as a private person or private teacher, could err through a certain ignorance, but could never fall into heresy nor teach heresy. […] Concerning the opinion of Bellarmine, this is said. […] But the doctrine which is proposed in the Schema is neither that of Alberto Pighius, nor the extreme opinion of any school, but Bellarmine’s, who admits this possibility in his Controversies.”

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

1.2. Source of this study is the work of Professor Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira.

The Professor points out to us, several times in his study, that he consulted 136 authors, 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 the schema of the “5 opinions” of Saint Bellarmine. The fifth opinion, which Saint Bellarmine makes his own, is indeed also that of the greatest part of the authors and authorities, if not practically all of them.

1.3. Unavoidable study on the heretical pope:

It is a work never done before and never equalled to this day, therefore unavoidable. I think I cannot do better than to receive and reproduce it because of its abundant and valid arguments. It will be difficult to do better than it, but as it suggests, the study should be extended and developed in the future, for “the hypothesis of a heretical pope” has become the dramatic reality and the most important cause of all the problems in the current Church… 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 then good for nothing but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot by men.” The salt is the Church, the earth must be “salted” by it. Indeed, salt gives flavour to food and preserves it from corruption: the Church must give to the world (to people of good will, of course) the flavour, the love of God and of eternal life and She must give it the means to preserve that flavour, the state of grace, until the end. If the Church is in crisis, if she is deprived for 60 years of her visible head and the number of her members is reduced to 0.01%, how will men save themselves, for there is no salvation outside of Her. It is a dogma (Council of Florence (1439))

1.4. Study requested by Mgr Castro de Mayer, Bishop of Campos in Brazil:

This is why Mgr Castro de Mayer – who, with Mgr Lefebvre, were the only bishops to openly oppose the heresies of Vatican II, not only during (with the 250 bishops of the “Coetus Patrum Concilii”) but especially just after that conciliar assembly – asked his theologian, Professor da Silveira, to carry out this in-depth study in order to understand exactly what happened with the last “popes”.

Deo gratias.

1.5. Who is the author:

In memoriam: Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira (1929-2018)

Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira belonged, both on his father’s side and his mother’s side, to renowned Brazilian families known for their importance in politics, law and entrepreneurial spirit. Born in 1929 in São Paulo, Brazil, he studied with the Jesuit Fathers, first at Saint Louis College, then at the Central Seminary of the Immaculate Conception. Subsequently, he joined the Faculty of Law of the Catholic University of São Paulo, where he obtained, in 1956, a degree in legal and social sciences. He practised the profession of lawyer until his last days, while directing the legal department of the prestigious construction company Adolpho Lindenberg. He was also a professor of propaedeutic history, then of morals and sociology at the Faculty of Philosophy, Sciences and Letters Saint-Benoît, as well as at the Faculty of Economic Sciences Heart of Jesus, both affiliated to the Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo.

He was one of the founders of the monthly cultural review Catolicismo, published under the auspices of Mgr Antonio de Castro Mayer, Bishop of Campos, and author of important studies on the Magisterium of the Church, conciliar magisterium and papal infallibility. Among his many writings, mainly oriented towards the defence of the Catholic faith and orthodoxy, without any ambition for 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? (The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property – TFP, Spring Grove, Pennsylvania, 2015).

In 1970, Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira published, in a limited edition, Consideraciones sobre el “Ordo Missae” de Paulo VI, including the study we are using on the Theological Hypothesis of a Heretical Pope. This work was then 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” (St Luke, sermon on the mount).

The second part of this study, devoted to the “hypothesis of a heretical Pope”, was translated in 2016 by Inter Multiplices Una Vox, was published in Italian under the title Ipotesi Teologica di un Papa eretico (Edizioni Solfanelli, Chieti, 2016), and in 2018 in English, with a new chapter and an update, under the title Can a Pope be … a heretic? (Caminhos Romanos, Portugal, 2018).

In 2017, Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira was one of the first to sign the Correctio filialis addressed to Francis, current occupant of the apostolic see, denouncing the errors propagated under his authority. At 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 on the crisis of the Church.

Fortified by the sacraments of the Church, Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira died on 19 September 2018 in São Paulo, from complications of cardiac origin. 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, by rigorously examining and according to traditional Catholic theology, the possibility that an occupant of the apostolic see may deviate from the faith. The counter-arguments, such as those which affirm the absolute infallibility of a pope in all circumstances, are rejected, for, according to the Catholic doctrine prior to 1963, infallibility is strictly limited to the conditions defined by the Vatican Council I (Pastor Aeternus, 1870), and a pope can, in theory, fall into heresy as a private person, as theologians such as Saint Robert Bellarmine have taught (De Romano Pontifice, book II, chapter 30).

May his soul rest in peace.

Eric Jacqmin, Priest.

2. Full text of the study, second part :

“The New Mass of Paul VI: What to Think of It?”

by Professor Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira

 

PART II : THE THEOLOGICAL HYPOTHESIS OF A HERETIC POPE

 

Introduction

In divers troubled periods in the history of the Church, the theological question of the eventual fall of a Pope into heresy attracted the greatest interest (1). In those periods theologians as well as moralists and canonists devoted themselves to the examination of this delicate problem without ever arriving, however, at a uniform and definite consensus.

When those difficult moments had passed, the debates about the possibility of a heretical Pope ceased to attract the attention of the studious. In general the authors dedicate to them, then, only a few lines, as someone who had recalled an academic and curious problem, which however would never more become urgently interesting.

The uncontested possession of the Roman See by a long series of Pontiffs in the last centuries, has reconsigned to oblivion the question of a heretical Pope. Above all from the XVII Century to now, rare are the theologians who have dedicated themselves to examine this matter (2).

Beginning with the Pontificate of John XXIII, an attentive observer could nevertheless note that the delicate matter was returning, little by little, to interest specialized circles (3).

In spite of the relative frequency with which the question of a heretical Pope is being broached in our days, there has not been published to our knowledge in recent years an ample, systematic and up to date study of the matter.

Because of this fault, in our opinion, the debates over this theme are greatly impaired. From this it results for instance that – as we have been observing with more and more preoccupation – our contemporaries have in general studied the hypothesis of a heretical Pope with partial or even false notions of the state of the question. Various for this reason have fallen into evident errors and simplifications, which are rendering more difficult a lucid and coherent management of the grave theoretical and practical problems involved in the matter.

There are some who, knowing only the position of a certain author and of those who follow him, analyze the contemporary events only in the light of the doctrine of the author – and thus they do not consider the fact that other theologians of great authority sustain different theses.

It is not enough to say, for instance, that, as Cajetan or Suarez teach, the Cardinals and the bishops ought to declare the Pope deposed, should he become a heretic. Indeed there exist theologians of weight according to whom a true pope can never fall into heresy; others, also of great authority, while they admit the hypothesis of a fall into heresy, sustain nevertheless that the

Notes

(1) Such was the case, for example, in the VIII Century, on account of the ambiguous attitudes of Pope Honorius I in the face of Monothelitism; in the XII Century, when Paschal II weakened in relation to the question of investiture; in the XV and XVI Centuries on account of the scandals of Alexander VI.

(2) Rightly then, does Dublanchy, in the Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique, after analyzing the opinions of the classic theologians on the possibility of a Pope heretic, write: “We stop our studies at the end of the XVII Century, because from then on the theological controversy is not very interesting, in as much as the positions remained the same and in most cases, the question merits, on the part of the theologians, only a brief mention” (article “Infaillibilite de Pape”, in Dict. de Theol. Cath., col. 1716).

(3) Various factors have given rise to this problem in these days: in the first place, the convocation of the Second Vatican Council, a fact which made all the theological questions about the relations between the Pope and the Council most timely; in the second place, the profound symptoms of crisis in the Church, which already at that time constituted a motive of preoccupation for numerous spirits; in the third place, the efforts of certain progressives in proclaiming the possibility of a Pope heretic, with the objective of weakening the pontifical authority.

destitution of a pope is produced ipso facto, without the necessity of any declaration; there are furthermore many who hold other positions, as we shall see later. In this matter, therefore, there are various opinions which enjoy at least extrinsic probability (1). This being the case, what right has anyone, in our days, to attach himself to one of these opinions, seeking to impose it without more ado? There is no doubt that extrinsic probability yields to intrinsic evidence; but where are the well-founded and exhaustive publications, which permit a reevaluation, in new terms, of the basic data of the momentous matter? (2).

We judge it, therefore, more urgent than anything else to present an overall vision of the various opinions of the great theologians of the past on the problem of a heretical pope. And this is only an initial but indispensable step, so that one can get out of the stagnation in which lie the studies concerning this question, since the XVII Century, according to the observation of Dublanchy which we cited above (3).

Such being the case, our purpose in this second part of the present work is two-fold. On the one hand, it consists in indicating in detail what are the opinions about this matter, asking the attention of the studious for the reasons alleged by the various authors. And, on the other hand, it consists in communicating to the reader certain conclusions to which the analysis of the sources and reflection have brought us with the intention of making thus a small contribution in order that the theologians might reach a common opinion in this matter (4).

We restrict our considerations to the terrains of dogmatic theology, moral theology, and canon law, putting to one side the historical problems. Without doubt, a re-study in the light of the data known today about the question of a Pope heretic – of the pontificates of Liberius, of Honorius I, of Pascal II, of Alexander VI, etc. – would be most opportune (5). In the present exposition, nevertheless, there is no room for such deep research (6).

In order to clarify the question of a pope heretic, it is necessary to consider also certain problems connected to it, which we take up in the final chapters of this Part II: the hypothesis of a schismatic pope and of the dubious pope (chapter VIII), the possibility of errors and heresies (7) in pontifical and conciliar documents (chapters IX and X), and the right of public resistance to eventual iniquitous decisions of ecclesiastical authority (chapter XI).

Notes

(1) “A Proposition or opinion is called probable when it has in its favour reasons or motives of such weight, that a prudent person can assent to it, not in a firm manner (as in the case of certainty), but with a fear of error” (Noldin-Schmitt-Heinzel, Summa Theol. Mor., vol. I, p. 215, n. 225).
The intrinsic or internal probability “is founded upon reasons drawn from the very nature of the thing”; the extrinsic or external is “based directly upon the authority of the learned” (idem, ibidem, p. 215, n. 226).
“The external probability per se supposes the internal, that is, it supposes that the learned have been led by internal reasons to embrace the truth” (idem, ibidem, p. 215, n. 226).
Granted that the external probability is based essentially upon the internal, it is not licit to appeal to the external probability when one knows that the opinion is false and does not have any internal probability of being correct, even though authors of great name defend the opinion. External probability without internal probability can only be invoked when one is treating of an obscure matter, involved in difficulties, and still not sufficiently clarified by the authors” (idem, ibidem, p. 225, n. 238).

(2) It behooves one to keep well in mind the grave risks there would be in embracing in an absolute fashion one of the opinions admitted among the theologians, with the exclusion of the others, without having objectively decisive reasons for this, such as our ancestors did not succeed in establishing. Let us suppose that, confronted with a hypothetically heretical Pope, someone would judge him to be ipso facto deposed, as St. Robert Bellarmine teaches, and would draw the practical consequences following from that. This person would indeed incur the risk of falling into schism, which would be the result in case the opinion of Cajetan or Suarez, for example, were true, which requires a declaration of heresy in order that such a Pope be effectively deprived of his charge.
In the inverse sense, let us suppose that someone took as certain, without more ado, the opinion of Suarez. This person would have to, in sound logic, accept as dogma an eventual solemn definition which a heretical Pope made before the sentence of declaring his sin of heresy was pronounced. Now, such an acceptation would be rash, for, according to what is held by doctors of weight, such a Pope could already have ceased to be true, and therefore could define, as dogma, something false.

(3) See note 2 of page 141.

(4) As is evident, for an opinion to be classified as “common”, it is not necessary that it have the approval of theologians of a notoriously doubtful orientation.

(5) Refuting the objections which can be made against the doctrine of infallibility, St. Robert Bellarmine studies the cases of forty Popes. This number represents about 17% of the Pontiffs who had reigned up to that time (De Rom. Pont., lib. IV, cap. 8-14, pp. 486-506).

(6) In dogmatic material, it is obvious that we will pay more attention to what Tradition says to us, than to the arguments of reason. Such being the case, when we allude to historical facts, it will not be with the intention of analyzing them as such, but only seeking to gather the aid which the History of the Church can furnish for the clarification of Tradition in the matter.

(7) In chapters I to VII, dedicated to the analysis of the diverse opinions of the theologians about the question of a Pope heretic, we will consider only the possibility of heresy in the Pope as a private person. For that is the only hypothesis which the authors treat explicitly and ex professo. In chapter X, nevertheless, we will show that sacred theology does not exclude the possibility of heresy in the Pope as a public person, that is, in official pontifical documents. As is evident, such a possibility is limited to the documents which do not involve infallibility.

 

 

 

3. Chapter I: The Five Opinions Dealing with the Hypothesis of a Pope Heretic Expounded by Saint Robert Bellarmine

 

In the analysis of the divers opinions of the theologians over the hypothesis of the Pope heretic, we will adopt the classification presented by Saint Robert Bellarmine. Even today this is entirely valid in as much as the studies about the matter have made practically no progress in the last centuries. For this reason, many recent authors order the matter following in the footsteps of the great doctor of the Counter-Reform (1) When, nevertheless, it appears to us that the division of St. Robert Bellarmine does not distinguish with precision all the nuances which characterize certain schools, we will suggest subdivisions within his classification.

 

He enumerates five opinions worthy of study: (2)

 

1. The Pope can not be a heretic;
2. Falling into heresy, even merely internal, the Pope ipso facto loses the Pontificate;
3. Even though he falls into heresy, the Pope does not lose his charge;
4. The Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church;
5. The Pope heretic is ipso facto deposed in the moment in which his heresy becomes manifest.

 

In establishing this classification, Saint Robert Bellarmine only sought to order the matter in a manner convenient for the exposition of the reasons and objections which can be alleged in relation to each opinion. It was not his purpose to make a complete and systematic presentation of the principal positions which have been taken, in the course of the centuries, over the theological hypothesis of a Pope heretic. He does not refer, for example, to the doctrine of conciliarism, which had enormous importance in the past, and which, although of condemned by the Church (3), is sprouting up again in numerous progressive writings. The great Jesuit Saint did not set out clearly the logical criteria according to which he ordered the matter. All this creates a certain difficulty, for the comprehension of his classification, at the same time it may give rise to misunderstandings. In order to avoid these inconveniences, without however abandoning the classification of Saint Robert Bellarmine, we present here a synoptic outline of the different opinions about the hypothesis of a Pope heretic. Organizing the material in accord with a logical criteria, we seek to give a global vision of the matter and we insert the five sentences, which we will analyze later, in the systematic whole in which they must be considered.

 

Notes

 

1. See, for example: Wernz-Vidal, Ius Can., tom. II, pp. 433 ff.; Cocchi, Comment. in Codicem…, vol. III, pp. 25-26; Regatillo, Inst. Juris Canonici, vol. I, p. 299. Others adopt the classification of Saint Robert Bellarmine, but they introduce small alterations into it: Bouix, Tract de Papa, tom. II, pp. 654 ff.; Sipos, Ench. Iuris Can., p. 156, item d.

 

2. De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. XXX. – We will not consider, here, observations which Saint Robert Bellarmine makes about this matter in other passages of his writings.

 

3. See Denz.-Sch., systematic index, item G4db.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Memoir on Saint Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621)

 

Cardinal, Jesuit, and Doctor of the Church, Saint Robert Bellarmine is a towering 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 erudition, 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 formed generations of priests and theologians. Elevated 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 outstanding theological contributions.

In the following documents, we shall consider the five opinions of Saint Robert Bellarmine concerning “the case of a heretical pope” and retain the only true one.

Deo gratias.

 

In the studies that follow, we shall examine the five opinions one by one.

AMDG.