Second Opinion – Falling into Heresy, Even Though Merely Internally, the Pope Loses Ipso Facto the Pontificate
Table of Contents
Introduction
- In favor of this Opinion militate divers arguments, which Suarez sets out and afterwards refutes
- The Reasons that Militate Against this Second Opinion
- An Opinion Abandoned Today
Notes
Introduction
We will adopt the classification presented by Saint Robert Bellarmine on the subject of a heretical pope (“De Romano Pontifice”). Here is the second opinion.
The followers of this second opinion do not deny that, because of the arguments already indicated,[1] the Pope might turn heretic. And, admitting that there is complete incompatibility between heresy and ecclesiastical jurisdiction – above all pontifical jurisdiction – they maintain that the Pope heretic loses his charge ipso facto, even before the exteriorization of his heresy.
- In favor of this Opinion militate divers arguments, which Suarez sets out and afterwards refutes.[2] After showing, based on passages of Scripture, that the faith is the foundation of the Church, Suarez writes:
“Therefore, if the faith is the foundation of the Church, it is also the foundation of the Pontificate and of the hierarchical order of the Church. This is confirmed by the fact that that is the reason presented to explain why Christ had asked Saint Peter for a profession of faith before promising him the Papacy (Mat. 16). A second confirmation: frequently the Fathers say that he who does not have faith cannot hold jurisdiction in the Church: Saint Cyprian (referred in the chapter ‘Novatianus’, 7, q. 1; Cap. Didicimus, 24, q. 1), Saint Ambrose (cap. Verbum, de Poenitentia, q. 1), Pope Saint Gelasius (c. Achatius, I) and Alexander II (Cap. Audivimus, 24, q. 1), Saint Augustine (epist. 48 ad Vincent.; lib. de Pastoribus), Saint Thomas (II-II, q. 39). A third confirmation, by way of a very simple argument: a heretic is not a member of the Church; in consequence, neither is he the head. Further: the heretic should not even be saluted, rather he should be absolutely avoided, as Saint Paul teaches (Tit., 3) also Saint John (I Epist); much less, therefore, ought he to be obeyed. Finally: the heretical Pontiff denies Christ and the true Church; consequently he denies himself and his charge; consequently he is for this same reason deprived of that charge.”[3]
- The Reasons that Militate Against this Second Opinion are founded above all upon the visible character of the Church, in function of which it is impossible to admit the loss of jurisdiction for a reason which is unknowable and unverifiable by the faithful. Here is how Suarez develops his argumentation in respect to this:
“The loss of faith for heresy which is merely internal does not cause the loss of the power of jurisdiction (…). This is proved in the first place by the fact that the government (ecclesiastical) would become very uncertain if the power depended on interior thoughts and sins. Another proof: given that the Church is visible, it is necessary that her governing power be in its way visible, dependent therefore on external actions, and not on mere mental cogitations. This is a reason a priori, for in such a case the Church does not take away the power through her human law, since it does not judge what is internal, as we shall say further on. And the power is not taken away either by virtue of mere divine law for this either is natural, that is to say, co-natural to the supernatural gifts themselves, or it is established by a positive determination. The first member of the dilemma cannot be accepted, for by the very nature of things it is impossible to demonstrate a necessary connection between the faith and the power of jurisdiction; and also because the power of orders is even more supernatural, but it is not lost, which constitutes a truth of faith, as is shown more amply in the treatise on the sacraments in general, and as Saint Thomas teaches (II-II, q. 39, a. 3). Therefore, while the faith is the foundation of sanctification and of the gifts that pertain to it, it is not however the foundation of the other powers and graces, which are conceded for the benefit of other men. The second member of the dilemma is eliminated with the simple observation that neither by Tradition nor by Scripture is it possible to demonstrate the existence of this divine positive law. Finally, it is consistent with reason that, just as ecclesiastical jurisdiction is only conferred by means of some human act – whether it be only designative, that is elective of the person, as in the case of the Supreme Pontiff, or be it the conferring of power, as in the other cases – neither should it be taken away except by means of some external action, for in both situations due proportion must be guarded, considering the condition and nature of man.”[4]
- An Opinion Abandoned Today. As we have seen, this second opinion – of the loss of the Pontificate by merely internal heresy – is rooted in the thesis, today abandoned by the majority of the theologians, that even a heresy which is not exteriorized causes the loss of the condition of member of the Church.[5] Among these two positions there does not exist, however, a necessary connection. Thus it is that Cardinal Journet, while admitting that merely internal heresy excludes from the Church,[6] inclines nevertheless toward the opinion that the Pope heretic is not ipso facto removed.[7] Suarez also considered that the internal heretic ceased to be a member of the Church,[8] but required a declaratory act for the heretical Pope to fall from the Seat of Peter.[9]
In more general terms, it is opportune to observe that though there exists an intimate connection between the exclusion from the Church and the loss of the Papacy, a great number of theologians do not judge nevertheless that the first determines ipso facto the second.[10]
It is understood, then, that the opinion according to which merely internal heresy determines the loss of the Pontificate has been completely abandoned by the theologians.
Notes:
[1] In this matter, as is evident, the arguments in favor of one opinion constitute in general objections to the others, and vice-versa. Such being the case, in the chapter dedicated to each opinion we set forth only the arguments in its favor; the objections are enunciated in the objections raised up against the previous opinion (p. 148ff).
[2] Franciscus Suarez, De Fide, Spe et Charitate, disputatio X, sectio VI, nn. 3–10 (arguments presented and subsequently refuted in the context of this opinion).
[3] Franciscus Suarez, De Fide, Spe et Charitate, disputatio X, sectio VI, n. 6 (exact quotation as rendered in the original text).
[4] Franciscus Suarez, De Legibus, liber IV, capitulum VII, n. 7, p. 360 (exact reference as cited).
[5] The divers positions of the theologians about the moment when the heretic ceases to be a member of the Church can be seen in Ioachim Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa, tractatus I: De Ecclesia Christi, pp. 881–882.
[6] See Charles Journet, L’Église du Verbe Incarné, volume II, p. 575, note 3; p. 821, note 3; p. 1064 (where he cites a section of the Bull Ineffabilis Deus of Pius IX).
[7] See Charles Journet, L’Église du Verbe Incarné, volume II, p. 821, note 3.
[8] See Ioachim Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa, tractatus I: De Ecclesia Christi, p. 881.
[9] See the text of Franciscus Suarez cited on pages 161–164 of the present work.
[10] See the considerations of Franciscus Suarez (pp. 161–163) and Saint Robert Bellarmine (p. 169) on this point.