FIFTH OPINION IS THE COMMON DOCTRINE:
HAVING FALLEN INTO MANIFEST HERESY, THE POPE LOSES THE PONTIFICATE “IPSO FACTO”
Table of Contents
Introduction: This Fifth Opinion Is the Doctrine of the Church
I. This Fifth Opinion Is Defended by Numerous Renowned Theologians
- Defense of This Opinion by Saint Robert Bellarmine
- Defense of This Opinion by Father Pietro Ballerini
- Subdivision of This Fifth Opinion
- Appreciation of This Opinion
II. In Defense of the Fifth Opinion Enumerated by Saint Robert Bellarmine
- Possibility of a Heretical Pope
- Incompatibility “at the Root”
- The Jurisdiction of the Heretic
- The Central Question
- The Necessity of a Declaration Is Excluded
- Degree of Notoriety and Divulgation
III. Conclusion
N.B.
Notes
Introduction:
We return to what was said in the chapter on the five opinions of Saint Bellarmine: that this fifth opinion is that of nearly all authors, including Doctor Saint Bellarmine himself, and it is advocated by the First Vatican Council (1870), of which here are the details:
- The First Vatican Council (1870) Affirms That Saint Bellarmine Must Be Followed
At the July session of the First Vatican Council, the general rapporteur, Bishop Vinzenz Gasser (1809-1879), rejected the accusation made against the Deputation by certain Council Fathers, according to which they were following the opinion of Alberto Pighius, namely that 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 rather that of Saint Robert Bellarmine, who admits this possibility in his Controversies. (Mansi, vol. 52, col. 1218)
– Historical Context of the Citation
The reported declaration comes from the official intervention (called relatio) delivered on 11 July 1870 by Bishop Vincent Gasser (Bishop of Brixen, general rapporteur of the Deputation of the Faith), during the 45th general congregation of the Council, in view of the definition of the dogma of pontifical infallibility (constitution Pastor aeternus, chapter 4).
This relatio defends the doctrinal schema against accusations brought 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 Dutch theologian of the sixteenth century, 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 rather that of Saint Robert Bellarmine (sixteenth-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 Bishop 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 that is proposed in the Schema, the Deputation is unjustly accused, as if we wished to elevate 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 calls pious and probable, was that the Pontiff, as a private person or private doctor, 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 that is proposed in the Schema is neither that of Alberto Pighius, nor the extreme opinion of any school, but that of Bellarmine, 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 in the question of a heretical pope, we too shall follow Saint Bellarmine rather than other authors such as Cajetan.
- This fifth opinion is defended by numerous renowned theologians, such as Saint Robert Bellarmine, Sylvius, Pietro Ballerini, Wernz-Vidal, Cardinal Billot¹.
- Defence of this opinion by Saint Robert Bellarmine
After refuting the other opinions on the matter, Saint Robert Bellarmine sets out his position in the following terms:
‘Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope and head, in the same way that he ceases by himself to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and notably of Saint Cyprian (book 4, epistle 2), who refers in this way to Novatian, who was Pope (antipope) in the schism that occurred during the Pontificate of Saint Cornelius: “He could not retain the Episcopate, and, if he was previously made Bishop, he separated himself from the body of those who like him were Bishops and from the unity of the Church”. According to what Saint Cyprian affirms in that passage, even if Novatian had been a true and legitimate Pope, he would nevertheless have fallen automatically from the Pontificate if he separated himself from the Church.
This is the opinion of great recent doctors, such as John Driedo (book 4 of Script. et dogmat. Eccles. cap. 2, par. 2, sent. 2), who teaches that only those who are expelled separate from the Church, like the excommunicated, and those who separate themselves from it and oppose it, like heretics and schismatics. And, in his seventh affirmation, he maintains that in those who have separated themselves from the Church, absolutely no spiritual power remains over those who are in the Church. The same is said by Melchior Cano (book 4 of loc., cap. 2), teaching that heretics are neither parts nor members of the Church, and that it cannot even be conceived that someone is head and Pope, without being a member and part (cap. ult. ad argument. 12). And he teaches in the same place, with clear words, that hidden heretics are still of the Church, are parts and members, and that therefore the hidden heretical Pope is still Pope. This is also the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book 1 “De Eccles.”.
The foundation of this opinion is that the manifest heretic is in no way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which means that he is not so either by internal union or by external union. For even bad Catholics are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by the confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; hidden heretics are united and are members, although only by external union; on the contrary, good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by an external one; but manifest heretics belong in no way, as we have already proved².’
- Defence of this opinion by Fr. Pietro Ballerini
It seems to us very enlightening the explanation given of his position by another defender of this fifth opinion, Fr. Pietro Ballerini, an eminent Italian theologian of the eighteenth century. After observing that the Council could only pronounce on the heretical Pope if he were already deposed, Fr. Ballerini ponders:
‘A danger to the faith so imminent and among all the gravest, like that of a Pontiff who, although only privately, propounded heresy, could not tolerate delays. Because, then, wait for the remedy to come from a general Council, whose convocation is not easy? Is it not true that, in the face of such a danger to the faith, any subjects can by fraternal correction warn their superior, resist him to his face, refute him and, if necessary, summon him and press him to repent? The Cardinals, who are his counsellors, can do this; or the Roman clergy; or the Roman Synod, if, being assembled, it judges this opportune. For any person, even a private person, the words of Saint Paul to Titus hold: “Avoid the heretic, after a first and second correction, knowing that such a man is perverted and sins, since he is condemned by his own judgement” (Tit. 3, 10-11). For the person who, admonished once or twice, does not repent, but remains pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or defined dogma – not being able, by reason of that public pertinacity, to be excused in any manner from heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity – this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic faith and the Church, in such a way that now no declaration or sentence of anyone whatsoever is needed to cut him from the body of the Church. Very clear in this matter is the argument given by Saint Jerome concerning the cited words of Saint Paul: “Therefore it is said that the heretic has condemned himself: because the fornicator, the adulterer, the homicide and the other sinners are expelled from the Church by the priests; but the heretics pronounce sentence against themselves, excluding themselves from the Church spontaneously: this exclusion is their condemnation by their own conscience”. Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman clergy or even by the Synod, if he should remain hardened in heresy and openly turn himself away from the Church, must be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he must have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him. Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made known to the whole Church, making clear that by his own will he had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church, and that in a certain way she had abdicated the Pontificate, of which no one holds or can hold if he does not belong to the Church. It is seen therefore that in case of heresy, to which the Pontiff privately adhered, there would be an immediate and efficacious remedy, without convocation of a general Council: for in this hypothesis whatever might be done against him before the declaration of his contumacy and heresy, in order to call him to reason, would constitute a duty of charity, not of jurisdiction; and after his turning away from the Church had been manifested, if a sentence were pronounced against him by the Council, such a sentence would be pronounced against one who is no longer Pope nor superior to the Council³.’
- Subdivision of this fifth opinion
In our view, this fifth opinion should be subdivided into three⁴.
1° Some authors affirm that the Pope loses ‘ipso facto’ the Pontificate at the moment when he exteriorises his heresy.
2° Others maintain that such loss occurs when the heresy comes to the knowledge of a certain number of people, even if reduced.
3° Others, finally, judge that the heretical Pope only falls from the Roman See when his heresy becomes ‘notorious and publicly divulged’⁵.
-This divergence is linked to the multisecular dispute, which still today divides theologians, about the exact moment when the heretic ceases to be a member of the Church⁶. We do not judge it necessary to expose here, in detail, the peculiarities of the various subdivisions of this fifth opinion. It seems to us dispensable, also, to indicate precisely the position of each adherent of this opinion – so much the more since many among them are not clear on the matter. We will only make brief observations on the thought of Saint Robert Bellarmine and of Wernz-Vidal.
-Saving better judgement, it seems to us that Saint Robert Bellarmine did not make sufficiently clear his thesis on the moment when the heretical Pope would lose ‘ipso facto’ the Pontificate.
He says that this would occur when the heresy became ‘manifest’; and he opposes the concept of ‘manifest’ to that of ‘hidden’⁷. Now, hidden heresy can be internal (hidden ‘per se’), as it can be external unknown to others (hidden ‘per accidens’). If the first of these interpretations is attributed to Saint Robert Bellarmine, the Pope would lose the Pontificate at the moment when he exteriorised his heresy, even if no one perceived it. If the second interpretation is attributed to him, the loss of the Pontificate would occur when some other people – perhaps only one – knew of the fact.
Would a third interpretation still be possible? Could hidden heresy be understood as that which is already known to many people, but has not yet reached the general public, has not yet become ‘notorious and publicly divulged’? -Such an interpretation is adopted by Wernz-Vidal, who affirms even, without hesitation, that according to Saint Robert Bellarmine the heretical Pope would only be deposed when his defection in the faith became ‘notorious and publicly divulged’⁸.
- Appreciation of this opinion
We dispense ourselves from presenting again the reasons that can be alleged against this fifth opinion. They have already been exposed in previous pages⁹.
As we will say in the following chapter, we judge that this fifth opinion is the true one, and that Wernz-Vidal is right in saying – interpreting Saint Robert Bellarmine – that the eventually heretical Pope loses the Pontificate ‘ipso facto’, at the moment when his heresy becomes ‘notorious and publicly divulged’.
- In defence of the fifth opinion enumerated by Saint Robert Bellarmine
Throughout the previous chapters we have already made some reflections on the arguments alleged by the various schools. We now wish to present an overall view of the conclusions to which the examination of the matter has led us.
- Possibility of a heretical Pope
There are not found, in Scripture and in Tradition¹⁰, reasons that demonstrate the impossibility of a Pope falling into heresy. On the contrary, numerous testimonies of Tradition speak in favour of the possibility of such a fall. Thus being, we must consider as theologically possible that a Pope fall into heresy, and study the consequences that such a fact would bring for the life of the Church.
- Incompatibility ‘at the root’
Scripture and Tradition make patent the existence of a profound incompatibility, at the root, between the condition of heretic and the possession of ecclesiastical jurisdiction¹¹, since the heretic ceases to be a member of the Church¹².
This incompatibility is such that normally the condition of heretic and the detention of an ecclesiastical jurisdiction do not cohere. Nevertheless, it is not absolute, or rather, it is not such that, falling into internal heresy, or even external, the holder of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction is deposed ‘ipso facto’ from the office, in all cases and immediately.
The arguments presented by the various authors on this last point are decisive, and particularly so are the arguments drawn from the practice of the Church: by the Code of Canon Law the heretic only loses jurisdiction when a condemnatory or declaratory sentence is pronounced against him¹³; priests who have abandoned the Church have jurisdiction to give absolution to persons in danger of death¹⁴; it is commonly admitted that the Oriental schismatic Bishops (they also heretics) enjoy a jurisdiction that the Popes tacitly concede to them¹⁵; etc.
For this reason, we do not call this incompatibility ‘absolute’, but we speak only of ‘incompatibility at the root’. Heresy cuts the root and foundation of jurisdiction, that is, faith and the condition of member of the Church. But it does not eliminate ‘ipso facto’ and necessarily the jurisdiction itself. Just as a tree can retain life still for some time after its root is cut, so also, in frequent cases, jurisdiction endures even after the fall into heresy of him who possessed it¹⁶.
However, jurisdiction is only conserved in the person of the heretic on a precarious title, in a state of violence and to the extent that a precise and evident reason requires it, dictated by the good of the Church or of souls. -Thus is eliminated the position according to which in no hypothesis would the heretical Pope lose the office (third opinion enumerated by Saint Robert Bellarmine); besides, this position has against it other arguments of weight drawn from Tradition and natural reason¹⁷.
- The jurisdiction of the heretic
Already cut at its root, the jurisdiction of the heretic only subsists to the extent that it is sustained¹⁸ by another. Thus it is that the Pope sustains, for the good of souls and for the safeguarding of the juridical order in the Church, the jurisdiction of the heretical Bishop not yet deposed¹⁹.
If it is the Supreme Pontiff who falls into heresy, who can sustain jurisdiction in him? -The Church? We do not believe so, for this, when considered in contraposition to the Pope, is not superior to him, and therefore cannot sustain jurisdiction in him. The Pope is not subject to Ecclesiastical Law. -Jesus Christ? Yes, to the extent that it is licit to attribute to Him the intention of sustaining, at least for some time, the jurisdiction of an eventually heretical Pontiff.
- The central question
Here is posed, then, the central question: will there be circumstances in which one can and must say that Our Lord established that He would sustain, at least for some time, the jurisdiction of an eventually heretical Pope?
Nothing exists, in Sacred Scripture and in Tradition, that constitutes a sure and definitive response to this question. As we do not seek, here, only arguments of probability, but principally reasons that justify a certainty, we must investigate elsewhere if we find sure elements to respond to the proposed question.
As is obvious, in theological matter one cannot conceive an argumentation that does not start from at least one revealed premise. What we seek, therefore, is a minor premise, drawn not from Revelation but from natural reason, and which, united to a major revealed premise, furnishes a sure solution to the question presented above.
We judge that the major revealed premise from which we must start is the dogma that the Church is a visible and perfect society²⁰. As minor premise, we must place the principle, drawn from nature itself, according to which the facts of the public and official life of a visible and perfect society need to be ‘notorious and publicly divulged’²¹. From this it would be concluded that an eventual deposition of the head of the Church would not be a juridically consummated fact while it did not become ‘notorious and publicly divulged’.
-In scholastic form, we could draft the following sorites:
The Church is a visible and perfect society.
Now, the facts of the official and public life of a visible and perfect society only become juridically consummated when notorious and publicly divulged.
Now, the loss of the Papacy is a fact of the public and official life of the Church.
Therefore, the loss of the Papacy only becomes juridically consummated when notorious and publicly divulged.
-Such a conclusion, deriving from a revealed truth and from an evident premise to natural reason, expresses the certain will of Our Lord. It would not be a truth formally revealed, but a truth virtually revealed, a theological conclusion.
Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, therefore, would sustain the jurisdiction of the heretical Pope until the moment when his defection in the faith became ‘notorious and publicly divulged’.
-In consequence, all jurisdictional acts practised by the Pope during that period would be valid. Imagine even the case of his pronouncing a dogmatic definition, this would be infallible. The Holy Spirit, in such a hypothesis, would speak through him as He spoke through Balaam’s ass²².
- The need for a declaration is excluded
In our view, the arguments presented above eliminate the opinions according to which the Pope would lose the Pontificate at the moment when he fell into internal heresy²³, into hidden external heresy²⁴, and into manifest external heresy but not ‘notorious and publicly divulged’²⁵.
There would still remain two positions: the loss ‘ipso facto’ by heresy ‘notorious and publicly divulged’²⁶, and the loss through declaration²⁷.
Now, this last seems unsustainable, for, as Saint Robert Bellarmine demonstrated in his argumentation against Cajetan²⁸, it does not cohere with the principle that the Pope cannot be judged by any man²⁹.
- Degree of notoriety and disclosure
What degree of notoriety and disclosure is necessary for the eventually heretical Pope to be considered deposed? -In response to this question we must initially observe that there would be a certain degree of notoriety and disclosure in which, without any doubt, the loss of the office would have occurred. The problem would be posed – this yes – in relation to the precise moment when the deposition would occur. As to this particular, the proposed question could only be fully answered in function of the concrete circumstances. The concepts of ‘notorious’ and ‘publicly divulged’ seem to us clear in theory; their application to the concrete order would require the examination of a vast casuistry, which it is not our place to treat here.
It suffices, at the moment, to recall an observation that we made above³⁰: it is not by the fact that in practice this opinion could bring dissensions of importance, that one must hold it as false.
III. Conclusion
Summarising: we believe that a careful examination of the question of the heretical Pope, with the theological elements at our disposal today, permits concluding that an eventual heretical Pope would lose the office at the moment when his heresy became ‘notorious and publicly divulged’. And we think that this opinion is not only intrinsically probable, but certain, since the reasons alleged in its defence seem to us absolutely cogent. Moreover, in the works that we consulted, we did not find any argument that persuaded us of the opposite.
Anyway, other opinions remain extrinsically probable, seeing that they have in their favour authors of weight. Therefore, in the order of concrete action it would not be licit to take a determined position, seeking to impose it without more ado. It is for this reason that, as we said in the beginning, we invite the specialists in the material to restudy the question. Only thus will it be possible to arrive at a general agreement among the theologians, so that a determined opinion can be classified as theologically certain.
N.B.
‘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).
Notes
¹ Saint Robert Bellarmine: text which we cite next, Sylvius: ad II II, q. 39, a. 1; Pietro Ballerini: text which we cite on pp. 27-28; Wernz-Vidal: ‘Ius Can.’, tom. II, pp. 517 ss.; Billot: text which we cite on p. 7.
² Saint Robert Bellarmine, ‘De Rom. Pont.’, lib. II, cap. 30, p. 420.
³ Pietro Ballerini, ‘De Potestate Ecclesiastica…’, pp. 104-105.
⁴ We indicate this subdivision in the observations to position B-II-2 of the synoptic table on p. 6.
⁵ To this tripartite division alludes, for example, Suarez in ‘De Leg.’, lib. IV, cap. VII, n.° 6, p. 360. ‘Notoria et palam divulgata’ – The expression is from Wernz-Vidal: ‘Ius Can.’, vol. II, p. 517.
⁶ As we have already observed, there does not exist, however, an absolute correspondence between the position assumed by each author as to the moment when the heretic is excluded from the Church, and his opinion on the question of the heretical Pope: see pp. 16-17.
⁷ ‘De Rom. Pont.’, lib. II, cap. 30. – See also ‘De Ecclesia Militante’, lib. III, cap. 4-10.
⁸ Exorbitant the limits of this exposition if we sought to analyse how fluctuating, even in the best authors, are the concepts of ‘hidden’, ‘manifest’, ‘public’, ‘notorious’, etc. – We cite here only some bibliography on the matter: Code of Canon Law, can. 2197; can. 2259, §2; can. 2275, 1; Billot, ‘Tract. de Eccl. Christi’, tom. II, p. 617; Lercher, ‘Instit. Theol. Dogm.’, vol. I, p. 233, n.° 407; Hervé, ‘Manuale Theol. Dogm.’, vol. I, p. 448; Sipos, ‘Ench. Iuris Can.’, p. 774, item a; p. 810; p. 833, item b; Salaverri, ‘De Eccl. Christi’, p. 879, n.° 1047; Miguélez-Alonso-Cabreros, ‘Code of Canon Law’, commentary on can. 2197.
⁹ See especially the citations we made from Suarez (pp. 21 ss.) and Bouix (pp. 18 ss.).
¹⁰ See pp. 8 ss. – The Tradition in the broad sense, to which we refer, includes both divine Tradition and ecclesiastical. We know it through conciliar acts, pontifical documents, patristic writings, works of theologians, etc. (see Pesch, ‘Praelect. Dogm.’, tomus I, nn. 564, 571).
¹¹ See the texts of Saint Robert Bellarmine and Suarez which we transcribe, respectively, on pp. 24 ss. and 16-17.
¹² On the moment when the heretic ceases to be a member of the Church, see p. 17, note 2.
¹³ See the reasons alleged by Suarez, reproduced by us on pp. 16-17.
¹⁴ Canon 2264. – This canon, by itself, would be sufficient to demonstrate that the texts of the Fathers of the Church referring to the incompatibility between heresy and jurisdiction cannot be understood in the sense of an absolute and omnimodal incompatibility.
¹⁵ Canon 882. – Lacking another priest, they can also administer the other sacraments and sacramentals to persons in danger of death: can. 2261, §3.
¹⁶ See Hervé, ‘Man. Theol. Dogm.’, vol. I, p. 449, n.° 453, note 1, and bibliography there indicated.
¹⁷ As Suarez says in a text cited on pp. 45 ss., in that case ‘the heretical Pope is not a member of the Church as to the substance and form which constitute the members of the Church, but is head as to the office and action’.
¹⁸ See pp. 16-17, 20, 27 ss.
¹⁹ Normally it is said that, in certain cases provided for by Law, the jurisdiction of him who does not have it is ‘supplied’ by the Pope or by the Church. In the hypothesis of common error, for example, the Church ‘supplies’ the nonexistent jurisdiction, as canon 209 provides. – However, according to some authors, the ‘supplied’ jurisdiction only exists as act, not as habit (Lehmkuhl, ‘Theologia Moralis’, vol. II, p. 281, n.° 387; Wernz-Vidal, ‘Ius Can.’, tom. II, p. 439; Vermeersch-Creusen, ‘Epit. Iuris Can.’, tom. I, p. 278). Now, in the hypothesis that we advance, jurisdiction would exist as habit, and not only as act. It does not occur to us that there is a technical term that indicates such a juridical situation. Thus being, we say that jurisdiction is then ‘sustained’ in the person of the heretic.
²⁰ Some authors, especially ancient ones, did not consider that jurisdiction can be ‘sustained’ in the heretic, in view of an eminent interest of souls or of the Church. For this reason, even Saint Robert Bellarmine, as we noted in note 1 on p. 25, seems to deny the possibility of the permanence of jurisdiction in the manifest heretic – a permanence which the practice of the Church in the last centuries, especially in relation to heretical Bishops not yet deposed, obliges to admit as legitimate.
²¹ See: Denz.-Umb., systematic index, item Ia; Denz.-Sch., systematic index, item G4a.
²² We believe that this minor premise dispenses with demonstration, but requires some explanations.
It dispenses with demonstration because one could not conceive that the public and official life of a visible and perfect society would develop through hidden facts. Suarez exposes this principle in a text which we reproduce on pp. 16-17. And Domingo Soto uses a particularly felicitous expression in saying that, if there were depositions of prelates by reason of causes not externally constatable, ‘all jurisdictions would become ambiguous and confused’ (‘omnes jurisdictiones versarentur in ambiguo et in confuso’ – ‘Comment. in IV Sent.’, dist. 22, q. 2, a. 2, p. 1022). By analogous reason the authors say that the renunciation of the Pope is only consummated at the moment when it is communicated to the Church (see Coronata, ‘Instit. Iuris Can.’, vol. I, p. 366).
Some necessary explanations:
1 – We have already observed (note 2 on p. 29) that the concept of ‘notoriety’ does not have in Canon Law an entirely defined sense. We understand here by ‘notorious’ that which, de jure and de facto, fulfils all the conditions necessary so that it can be known, by all subjects, with certainty and without great difficulty.
2 – We understand by ‘publicly divulged’ that which de facto has already come to the knowledge of the general public, or at least of a number of persons sufficient so that the process of its divulgation to the general public has already become irreversible.
3 – The expression ‘notorious and publicly divulged’ is found in Wernz-Vidal, as we already pointed out in note 3 on p. 28.
²³ Note that the argumentation of which we avail ourselves is not the same as that of Saint Robert Bellarmine, taken up by Wernz-Vidal. They start from the principle that he who is not, in any sense, a member of the Church, cannot be its head. Such an argument seems to us true, provided that a clause is added to it according to which Our Lord would sustain the jurisdiction of the heretical Pope while his heresy did not become ‘notorious and publicly divulged’. Nevertheless, even thus formulated, this argument raises another question, extremely disputed: that of the exact moment when the heretic ceases to be a member of the Church. According to what we think, whatever that moment may be, the eventually heretical Pope would only effectively fall from the Pontificate when his defection in the faith became ‘notorious and publicly divulged’.
²⁴ Second opinion referred to by Saint Robert Bellarmine. – See pp. 16 ss.
²⁵ First subdivision proposed by us to the fifth opinion referred to by Saint Robert Bellarmine – See p. 28.
²⁶ Second subdivision proposed by us to the fifth opinion. – See p. 28.
²⁷ Third subdivision proposed by us to the fifth opinion. – See p. 28.
²⁸ Fourth opinion referred to by Saint Robert Bellarmine. – See pp. 21 ss.
²⁹ We transcribe this long argumentation on pp. 24 ss. – See also note 2 on p. 23.
³⁰ One must not see traces of conciliarism, this yes, in the principle that ecclesiastical organisms, like the Council, can emit a declaratory pronouncement on the eventual cessation of functions of a heretical Pope, provided that these organisms do not claim for themselves any other right than that which any faithful enjoys. For motives of mere convenience and courtesy, to these organisms could compete, in the first place, to make such declaration; but this priority would not constitute for them a proper right, much less exclusive.