Third Opinion: Even If He Falls Into Notorious Heresy, The Pope Never Loses The Pontificate
Table of Contents
- Introduction to the third opinion (Bouix)
- Main arguments of Bouix against the deposition of the heretical Pope
2.1. The evil caused by a heretical Pope is not so great that it obliges one to think that Christ willed his deposition
2.2. The deposition would be a remedy worse than the evil
- Hypotheses of deposition (by Christ or by the Council) and their consequences
3.1. Deposition by Christ after conciliar declaration
3.2. Deposition by the authority of the Council itself
- Problems linked to ipso facto deposition for heresy
4.1. Public and notorious heresy
4.2. External but occult heresy
4.3. Internal heresy
- Faith is not necessary for the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction
- Response to the patristic texts invoked
- Response to the argument: the heretical Pope is neither member nor head of the Church
- Synthetic formulas of Bouix
- Critique of the third opinion (improbability, opposition to Tradition, etc.)
- Note on the FSSPX
- Notes and references
- Introduction to the third opinion (Bouix)
We shall adopt the classification presented by Saint Robert Bellarmine on the subject of a heretical pope (« De Romano Pontifice »). Here is the third opinion.
This third opinion – which Saint Robert Bellarmine qualifies as « very improbable »¹ – is defended by only one theologian among the 136 ancient and modern authors whose position on the matter we have been able to verify. It is the French canonist D. Bouix (+1870), who argues in these terms².
- Main arguments of Bouix against the deposition of the heretical Pope
« There is no sufficient reason to think that Christ determined that the heretical Pope could be deposed. The reason alleged in favor of this deposition would be the enormous evil that would befall the Church if such a Pope were not removed. Now, this reason does not hold: for, on the one hand, the heretical Pope does not constitute an evil so great that it necessarily leads the Church to ruin and destruction³; and, on the other hand, the deposition would be a remedy far worse than the evil itself⁴.
2.1. The evil caused by a heretical Pope is not so great that it obliges one to think that Christ willed his deposition
In the first place, therefore, we say that the papal heresy of which we are speaking here does not constitute an evil so grave that it necessarily obliges one to think that Christ would have willed the deposition of such a Pontiff. It is, in fact, a heresy exclusively private⁵, that is to say, professed by the Pontiff not as Pastor of the Church and in his decrees and pontifical acts, but only as a private doctor and solely in his particular words and writings. Now, as long as the Pope teaches the true faith each time he defines and pronounces as Pontiff, the faithful will be sufficiently secure, even if it is known, at the same time, that the Pope himself privately adheres to some heresy. All would easily understand that the opinion defended by the Pope as a private doctor must be set aside from authority, and that one should obey him only when he defines and officially imposes truths of faith with pontifical authority. If someone, despite this, insisted that the private heresy of the Pope could be so harmful that Christ could not leave his Church without remedy against such a great evil, we reply that we too think very probably thus; but as a remedy we indicate the special Providence of Christ so that the Pope does not fall into heresy, even as a private doctor. We absolutely deny, however, that Christ could have established as a remedy the deposition of the Pope.
2.2. The deposition would be a remedy worse than the evil
For – this is our second assertion – such a remedy would be worse than the evil itself.
- Hypotheses of deposition (by Christ or by the Council) and their consequences
In fact, it is supposed that this deposition would be carried out by Christ himself, as soon as the Pope had been declared heretical by a General Council, in accordance with the doctrine of Suarez, or that it would be carried out by virtue of the proper authority of the General Council. Now, in both cases, the evil would be aggravated, and not cured.
3.1. Deposition by Christ after conciliar declaration
For the doctrine according to which Christ himself would depose the heretical Pope thus declared by a General Council is only an opinion, rejected by many, and from which it is lawful for anyone to diverge. Suarez himself judges this opinion less probable, since he considers it more probable that there cannot be a heretical Pope, even privately. Thus, even after having been declared heretical by a General Council, it would absolutely not become certain that this Pope would be deposed; and in such doubt, one should rather continue to recognize his authority. If another Pope were elected, not only would his legitimacy be uncertain, but he should even be held as an intruder. Consequently, the remedy of a deposition made by Christ at the time of the conciliar declaration would not only not remedy the evil, but would create a much greater evil, namely an extremely complicated schism.
3.2. Deposition by the authority of the Council itself
Therefore, in no way should one think either that Christ established as a remedy the deposition by the proper authority of the Council. For, besides the fact that it is impossible for the Council to depose the Pope⁶, as will be said further on, a greater evil would follow if this were possible. In fact, the concession to the Council, by Christ, of such authority over the heretical Pope is only a simple opinion, very commonly rejected by Catholic doctors, and even intrinsically inadmissible, as is easily demonstrated. Therefore, after such a deposition, it would absolutely not become certain that the heretical Pope had been deprived of the pontifical primacy. The one who had been elected in his place would be held by many as an intruder, and as such could be licitly rejected. This measure, consequently, would not bring a remedy, but rather schism, confusion and dissension⁷.
« It would be extremely harmful to the Church – Bouix further writes – that the Pope be deposed ipso facto for being heretical. For this would be done either only for notorious and public heresy, or also for external but occult heresy, or for internal heresy.
- Problems linked to ipso facto deposition for heresy
4.1. Public and notorious heresy
If it were for public and notorious heresy, doubts would arise as to the degree of notoriety or infamy necessary for the Pontiff to be considered deprived of the Pontificate⁸. Whence schisms would arise and everything would become uncertain, especially if, despite the alleged notoriety, the Pope retained the office by force or by any other means, and continued to exercise numerous acts of his office.
4.2. External but occult heresy
If the removal were done because of external but occult heresy, even greater evils would arise. For all the acts of such an occultly heretical Pontiff would be null and invalid, but this would be known only to a few persons.
4.3. Internal heresy
Such an inconvenience would be even greater, as is clear, if the Pope were deposed ipso facto because of internal heresy⁹. (…)
- Faith is not necessary for the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction
Faith is not necessary for a man to be capable of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and to be able to exercise true acts that require such jurisdiction. For in case of extreme necessity, the heretical priest can absolve, as is taught in the treatises on penance and censures, and yet absolution requires and supposes jurisdiction. Moreover, the power of order, which in its way is superior, can endure without faith, that is, with heresy; therefore ecclesiastical jurisdiction can also. (…)
- Response to the patristic texts invoked
To the texts in which certain Fathers teach that he who has not the faith cannot have jurisdiction in the Church, one replies: this must be understood in the sense that without faith ecclesiastical jurisdiction cannot be exercised fittingly, and in the sense that the heretic merits to be deprived of jurisdiction; or certain of these texts must be interpreted as determinations of Canon Law relating to bishops in particular, determinations that declare them deposed ipso facto. (…)
- Response to the argument: the heretical Pope is neither member nor head of the Church
To the argument according to which, not being a member of the Church, the heretical Pope is not its head either, (…) the following response can be given: one concedes that the heretical Pope is neither member nor head of the Church as regards the supernatural life that begins with faith and ends with charity, by which all the members of the Church are united in a supernaturally living body; but one denies that he is neither member nor head of the Church as regards the power of government proper to his office. For it is not repugnant that Christ wills that the Pope (or even the bishop in relation to the diocese), although by reason of heresy he no longer belongs to this supernaturally living body, nevertheless retains the power to govern the Church, exactly as if he had not lost the aforementioned supernatural life¹⁰. As for the power of order, there is no doubt that Christ did not will that the priest or heretical bishop be deprived of it, although by reason of heresy they have already ceased to be members of the Church, in the sense indicated. Now, it would not be more absurd that jurisdiction remain in the heretical bishop than in the heretical Pope, whether it be only internal or even external¹¹. »
- Synthetic formulas of Bouix
Bouix expresses his thought on the matter thus, in a synthetic formula:
« (…) if the case of a privately heretical Pope is possible, it must be judged that Christ, despite this, willed that this Pope retain supreme authority, and that he cannot in any way be deprived of such authority by a General Council¹². »
And immediately after he declares, in terms perhaps even more incisive:
« (…) as to Suarez and to many others it seems more probable that the Pope, even as a private person, cannot fall into heresy. But in the hypothesis where he could become privately heretical, I absolutely deny that he would be deposed ipso facto, or that he could be deposed by any Council¹³. »
- Critique of the third opinion (improbability, opposition to Tradition, etc.)
Despite the ingenious efforts deployed by Bouix in defense of this third opinion, it seems to us that it must be qualified, with Saint Robert Bellarmine, as « very improbable ». In fact, it has against it the practically unanimous Tradition of the Church, does not agree with numerous texts of Sacred Scripture; it does not seem to evaluate fittingly the extreme evil that a heretical Pope can do to the Church; and it is so minority among theologians that Cardinal Camillo Mazzella, S.J., goes so far as to affirm that no author among those who admit the possibility of a heretical Pope has denied or doubted that he is deposed ipso facto from the office, or at least must be removed¹⁴.
- Note on the FSSPX of the editor (Fr.Eric Jacqmin) who can swear before God if necessary, that he writes here the truth and nothing but the truth in all details:
Unfortunately, this implausible opinion that has just been treated is the official position of the FSSPX throughout its existence. In 2017, Bishop Bernard Fellay, their superior, was one of the prominent signers of the « Correctio filialis » addressed to Francis, then occupying the apostolic see, denouncing the errors propagated under his authority as « heresies ». Nevertheless, they continue to accept him as pope. Oremus pro errantibus illis.
What aggravates their position to the point of scandal and grave sin is that Bishop Tissier de Mallerais personally confessed to me in July 2015 in Quiévrain, that he knows “that the popes of Vat II are heretics and therefore are not popes, but that we (the superiors of the FSSPX) will not declare it, otherwise we will lose too many faithful and priests who will not follow us”. This is to deceive the faithful and the priests who for example must promise before the open tabernacle, on the eve of their ordinations to the major orders, to accept the popes after Vat II as true popes.
Archbishop Lefebvre himself would have said the same thing according to the testimonies of abbot Guépin (his testimony of this circulates on the internet in a “you tube” video) and Mr. François Croonen (Brussels) whom I know personally.
Bishop Fellay also confessed to me shortly after that a heretical pope loses his papacy, but that Vat II has no heresies but only less grave errors. But in the document of which I speak above, which he signed, he indeed accuses Francis of heresies… and he continues to accept him as true pope.
Also Bishop de Galarreta, knowing that I had become sedevacantist, said to faithful: “let him do it”, that is, he admitted that I was not wrong.
However the FSSPX expelled me shortly after, on August 15, 2015 “for sedevacantism and criticism of superiors”. Blessed are the persecuted!
Thus their mortal sins accumulate: they follow the antipopes in their directives on fasting, abstinence (grave matters), canon law, indulgences and jurisdiction (touches the validity of confessions and marriages). Therefore these are formal mortal sins, because committed with full admitted conscience. Incomprehensible that one can so cruelly mistreat the Church, one’s own soul, that of the faithful and priests and the honor of God. I still cannot get over it. It is kafkaesque!
Therefore the FSSPX is not Catholic, but schismatic in following anti-popes. I shall return to this later in another chapter. But being myself an ex-member of the FSSPX, I speak of it here because I am disgusted to have been abused by their superiors until I discovered the truth. He who seeks finds, and a child of Mary cannot err for long (read de Montfort, treatise on true devotion).
- Notes and references
¹ « De Rom. Pont. », liv. II, chap. 30, p. 418.
² As will be seen in the following pages, Bouix judges more probable that the Pope cannot fall into heresy; but, admitting the hypothesis of this fall, he maintains that the Pontiff would retain the office. – Note also that Bouix explicitly affirms that before a heretical Pope the faithful should not remain inert, but resist his iniquitous determinations. (On the right of resistance, even public, to the decisions of ecclesiastical authority, see pp. 53 ff.).
³ Bouix argues here in a hyperbolic manner. No author has ever said that the Church would necessarily be led « to ruin and destruction » if the heretical Pope retained the Pontificate. What constitutes the common opinion – which Bouix seems to underestimate or even deny – is that the permanence of such a Pope in the office would entail enormous evils for the Church and the salvation of souls, because heresy « spreads like a cancer » (2 Tim. 2, 17 – see also the commentary of Suarez on this passage, cited by us pp. 22-23) and, once possibly installed on the Chair of Peter, would constitute « a peril for the faith (…) imminent and among all most grave » (Pietro Ballerini, text that we cite pp. 27-28).
⁴ The principal reason alleged against the permanence of the heretical Pope in the office is not the evil that would result for the Church, but the incompatibility existing between heresy and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as we expound pp. 30-31. See also the expositions on this subject by Saint Robert Bellarmine (p. 27) and Pietro Ballerini (pp. 27-28). As for the affirmation that the loss of the Pontificate by the heretical Pope would entail greater evils than his permanence in the office, see note 6 of p. 21.
⁵ In this passage, Bouix does not consider all possible hypotheses. He says that it is a question of exclusively private heresy, since the Pope does not err when he defines and imposes truths of faith. Now, there would be a third case to enumerate: that of official pontifical documents which however do not define truths of faith. And in these the possibility of errors and even heresies is not excluded, as we show in chapters IX and X of this First Part, pp. 41-52. Consequently, the argument here presented by Bouix does not conclude, since it is based on an inadequate division.
⁶ On this point, Bouix undoubtedly has entirely reason, for the Council could depose the Pope by proper authority only if it were superior to him. And it is a dogma of faith that the Council is in no hypothesis above the Pope. – On the non-conciliarist sense of the term « deposition », see note 3 of p. 21.
⁷ Bouix, « Tract. de Papa », tom. II, pp. 670-671.
⁸ Here neither does it seem to us that Bouix is right. Numerous rights and duties are based on concrete facts whose complexity can offer matter for discussions. It is however not for this that one must deny, in principle, the existence of such rights and duties. As regards the disagreement that could arise between theologians in the case here analyzed by Bouix, what we have said (pp. 1-2) on the necessity of a greater deepening of the whole question of the heretical Pope is valid.
⁹ The argument of Bouix against the loss of the Pontificate by a Pope only occultly heretical, or only internally heretical, seems to us decisive. It is based on the visible character of the Church, as we observe p. 32.
Note that the hypothesis of simply internal heresy corresponds to the second opinion enumerated by Saint Robert Bellarmine (see, in the synoptic table of p. 5, position B-II-1; and also pp. 16-17), while the hypothesis of external but occult heresy constitutes one of the subdivisions that we introduce in the fifth opinion of Saint Robert Bellarmine (see, in the synoptic table of p. 6, the observations at position B-II-2; and also pp. 28-29).
¹⁰ It does not seem to us that Bouix here grants the due importance to the principle according to which heresy entails ipso facto the loss, at least in root, of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction. We expound this principle pp. 30-31.
¹¹ Bouix, « Tract. de Papa », tom. II, pp. 660-662.
¹² Bouix, « Tract. de Papa », tom. II, p. 666.
¹³ Bouix, « Tract. de Papa », tom. II, p. 666 – the underlining is ours.
¹⁴ We recall that of the 136 authors we have consulted, only Bouix defends this opinion (see p. 18).
Card. Camillo Mazzella, « De Relig. et Eccl. », p. 817.
In the same sense, writes Cardinal Billot: « once this is supposed (that a Pope has become heretical), all concede that the bond of communion and subjection (with respect to the Pope) would be undone, with foundation in the divine dispositions that expressly order to avoid heretics: Tit. III, 10; II Jo. 10, etc. » (« Tract. de Eccl. Christi », tom. I, p. 615). – See also R. de M., « Inst. Iuris Can. », vol. I, p. 265.
Note that Bouix here seeks to refute the text of Suarez that we present p. 22.
Bouix is right when he affirms that, in case of doubt, one should continue to recognize the authority of the Pope in what does not oppose the principles of the faith. For the loss of jurisdiction is effected only when it is demonstrated (« melior est conditio possidentis »).
We believe however that the doubt to which Bouix alludes can today be resolved by the combined action of theologians, for there are elements for them to arrive at a common opinion on the subject (see pp. 2 and 33).