Third Opinion:
Even If He Falls into Notorious Heresy,
the Pope Never Loses the Pontificate
Main source: “La Nouvelle Messe de Paul VI :
qu’en penser ?”
by Prof. Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira
Table of Contents
- Introduction to the Third Opinion (Bouix)
- Bouix’s Main Arguments against the Deposition of a Heretical Pope
2.1. The evil caused by a heretical Pope is not so great that it obliges us to think that Christ willed his deposition
2.2. Deposition would be a remedy worse than the evil itself
- Hypotheses of Deposition (by Christ or by the Council) and Their Consequences
3.1. Deposition by Christ after a conciliar declaration
3.2. Deposition by the authority of the Council itself
- Problems Connected with 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
- Reply to the Patristic Texts Invoked
- Reply to the Argument: The Heretical Pope Is Neither Member Nor Head of the Church
- Bouix’s Synthetic Formulas
- 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.
- Bouix’s Main Arguments against the Deposition of a Heretical Pope
“There is no sufficient reason to think that Christ determined that a heretical Pope could be deposed. The reason alleged in favour 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, a heretical Pope does not constitute so great an evil that it necessarily leads the Church to ruin and destruction³; and, on the other hand, 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 us to think that Christ willed his deposition
In the first place, therefore, we say that the papal heresy in question here does not constitute so grave an evil that it necessarily obliges us to think that Christ would have willed the deposition of such a Pontiff. It is, in fact, a question of exclusively private heresy⁵, that is, 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 statements and writings. Now, since the Pope teaches the true faith every time he defines and pronounces as Pontiff, the faithful will be sufficiently safe even if it is known at the same time that the Pope himself privately adheres to some heresy. Everyone would easily understand that the opinion defended by the Pope as a private doctor should be stripped of authority, and that obedience should be given to him only when he defines and officially imposes truths of faith with pontifical authority. If someone, despite this, insisted that the Pope’s private heresy could be so harmful that Christ could not leave His Church without a remedy against so great an 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 deposition of the Pope as a remedy.
2.2. Deposition would be a remedy worse than the evil itself
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
Indeed, 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 Suarez’s doctrine, or that it would be carried out by virtue of the Council’s own authority. Now, in both cases, the evil would be aggravated, not healed.
3.1. Deposition by Christ after a 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 anyone may licitly dissent. Suarez himself judges this opinion less probable, since he considers it more probable that there could not be a heretical Pope, even privately. Thus, even after having been declared heretical by a general Council, it would not become absolutely certain that this Pope would be deposed; and in such doubt, one should rather continue to recognise 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 moment of the conciliar declaration would not only not remedy the evil, but would create a much graver 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 deposition by the Council’s own authority. For, besides the fact that it is impossible for the Council to depose the Pope⁶, as will be said later, a greater evil would follow if it were possible. Indeed, 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 not become absolutely certain that the heretical Pope had been deprived of the pontifical primacy. He 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 writes again, “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 occult heresy, or for internal heresy.
- Problems Connected with 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 deposed from the Pontificate⁸. From this would arise schisms 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 destitution were done on account 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 still greater, as is clear, if the Pope were deposed ipso facto on account 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 a case of extreme necessity, a 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 own way is superior, can endure without faith, that is, with heresy; therefore ecclesiastical jurisdiction can do so as well. (…)
- Reply to the Patristic Texts Invoked
To the texts in which certain Fathers teach that he who does not have the faith cannot have jurisdiction in the Church, the reply is: this must be understood in the sense that without faith ecclesiastical jurisdiction cannot be exercised fittingly, and in the sense that the heretic deserves to be deprived of jurisdiction; or certain of these texts must be interpreted as determinations of Canon Law relative to bishops in particular, determinations that declare them deposed ipso facto. (…)
- Reply 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 the head of the Church either, (…) the following reply can be given: it is granted that the heretical Pope is neither member nor head of the Church as regards the supernatural life that begins with faith and is completed by charity, by which all the members of the Church are united in a supernaturally living body; but it is denied 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 should will that the Pope (or even the bishop in relation to the diocese), although by reason of heresy he is no longer part of this supernaturally living body, should nevertheless retain the power of governing 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 either the heretical priest or the heretical bishop should 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 for jurisdiction to remain in the heretical bishop than in the heretical Pope, whether internal only or even external¹¹.”
- Bouix’s Synthetic Formulas
Bouix expresses his thought on the matter in this synthetic formula:
“(…) if the case of a privately heretical Pope is possible, one must judge that Christ, despite this, willed that this Pope conserve the supreme authority, and that he cannot in any way be deprived of such authority by a general Council¹².”
And immediately afterwards he declares, in terms perhaps even more incisive:
“(…) as it seems more probable to Suarez and to many others that the Pope, even as a private person, cannot fall into heresy. But in the hypothesis where he could become privately heretical, I deny in an absolute manner 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 defence of this third opinion, it seems to us that it must be qualified, with Saint Robert Bellarmine, as “very improbable”. Indeed, it has against it the practically unanimous Tradition of the Church, it does not accord with numerous texts of Holy 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 his office, or at least must be removed¹⁴.
The fundamental error of Bouix consists in treating the problem as a simple question of practical utility: which remedy would cause the least disorder? Now the first question is not disciplinary, but theological: can a manifest heretic remain the visible principle of unity of faith in the Church? If he is publicly separated from the faith, he is publicly separated from ecclesiastical communion; and if he is separated from this communion, he cannot be the visible head of those whom he no longer joins in the profession of the same faith. The danger of schism alleged by Bouix therefore resolves nothing: it substitutes for the rule of faith a rule of administrative conservation. But the Church is not conserved by the recognition of a heretic as head; she is conserved by the integral profession of the faith received.
- Note on the FSSPX by the editor (Abbé 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, Mgr. Bernard Fellay, their superior, was one of the eminent personalities to sign 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. Let us pray for those who err.
What aggravates their position to the point of scandal and grave sin is that Mgr. Tissier de Mallerais personally admitted to me in July 2015 at Quiévrain that he knows “that the popes of Vatican II are heretics and therefore are not popes, but that we (the superiors of the FSSPX) are not going to declare it, otherwise we will lose too many faithful and priests who will not follow us”. This is deceiving the faithful and the priests who, for example, must promise before the open tabernacle, on the eve of their ordinations to major orders, to accept the popes after Vatican II as true popes.
Mgr. Lefebvre himself would have said the same thing according to the testimonies of Abbé Guépin (his testimony on this circulates on the internet in a YouTube video) and Mr. François Croonen (Brussels) whom I know personally.
Mgr. Fellay also admitted to me shortly afterwards that a heretical pope loses his papacy, but that Vatican II has no heresies but only less grave errors. But in the document mentioned above, which he signed, he indeed accuses Francis of heresies… and he continues to accept him as true pope.
Also Mgr. de Galarreta, knowing that I had become sedevacantist, said to some faithful: “let him do it”, which means that he admitted that I was not wrong.
However the FSSPX expelled me shortly afterwards, on 15 August 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, in matters of indulgences and jurisdiction (which touches the validity of confessions and marriages). Therefore it is objectively grave matter; one can, even with great sadness in the heart, say that these are probably formal mortal sins, committed with admitted full knowledge. Incomprehensible that one can so cruelly mistreat the Church, one’s own soul, that of the faithful and priests, and the honour of God. I still cannot get over it. It is “Kafkaesque”!
Therefore the FSSPX is not Catholic, the official practical position of the FSSPX is schismatic insofar as it recognises and follows antipopes. I shall return to this later in another chapter. But being myself a former member of the FSSPX, I speak of it here because I am sickened at having 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.”, book II, ch. 30, p. 418.
² As will be seen in the following pages, Bouix judges it 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 in the face of a heretical Pope the faithful should not remain inert, but should resist his iniquitous determinations. (On the right of resistance, even public, to 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 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 Suarez’s commentary on this passage, cited by us on pp. 22-23) and, once eventually installed on the Chair of Peter, would constitute “a peril for the faith (…) imminent and above all most grave” (Pietro Ballerini, text that we cite on pp. 27-28).
⁴ The principal reason alleged against the permanence of the heretical Pope in office is not the evil that would result for the Church, but the incompatibility existing between heresy and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as we explain on 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 assertion that the loss of the Pontificate by the heretical Pope would entail greater evils than his permanence in office, see note 6 on p. 21.
⁵ In this passage, Bouix does not consider all the 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 nevertheless 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 is undoubtedly entirely right, because the Council could depose the Pope by its own 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 on p. 21.
⁷ Bouix, “Tract. de Papa”, tom. II, pp. 670-671.
⁸ Here too it does not seem to us that Bouix is right. Many rights and duties are based on concrete facts whose complexity can offer matter for discussion. This is not, however, a reason to deny, in principle, the existence of such rights and duties.
As regards the disagreement that could arise among theologians in the case here analysed by Bouix, what we have said (pp. 1-2) on the necessity of a greater deepening of the whole question of the heretical Pope holds.
⁹ Bouix’s argument against the loss of the Pontificate by a Pope who is only occultly heretical, or only internally heretical, seems to us decisive. It is based on the visible character of the Church, as we observe on 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 on p. 5, position B-II-1; and again 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 on p. 6, the observations on position B-II-2; and again pp. 28-29).
¹⁰ It does not seem to us that Bouix accords here the importance due to the principle according to which heresy entails ipso facto the loss, at least in root, of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction. We expound this principle on 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 consulted, only Bouix defends this opinion (see p. 18).
Card. Camillo Mazzella, “De Relig. et Eccl.”, p. 817.
In the same sense, Cardinal Billot writes: “once this is supposed (that a Pope has rendered himself heretical), all concede that the bond of communion and subjection (in relation 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 seeks here to refute the text of Suarez that we present on p. 22.
Bouix is right when he affirms that, in case of doubt, one should continue to recognise 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).