Loss of the Papacy: ipso facto,
by internal heresy
Second opinion: By falling into heresy,
even merely internal heresy,
the Pope loses the pontificate ipso facto
Principal source: The masterly work “The New Mass of Paul VI: What Should One Think of It?” by Prof. Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, theologian of Campos, Brazil.
Table of contents
Introduction
1. Arguments in favour of this opinion
– Exposition and refutation by Suarez
2. Reasons against this opinion
– Refutation by Suarez
– Dilemma posed
3. An opinion abandoned today
Conclusion
Introduction
We shall adopt the classification presented by Saint Robert Bellarmine on the subject of a heretical pope (“De Romano Pontifice”). Here is the second opinion.
The partisans of this second opinion do not exclude, given the arguments already set forth, that the Pope can become a heretic. And, admitting that there is a complete incompatibility between heresy and ecclesiastical jurisdiction — especially pontifical jurisdiction — they maintain that the heretical Pope loses the office “ipso facto”, even before any exterior manifestation of his heresy.
1. In favour of this opinion
several arguments are advanced, which Suarez then exposes and refutes. After having shown, on the basis of a passage of Scripture, that faith is the foundation of the Church, Suarez writes:
“Therefore, if 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 it is this reason which is presented to explain that Christ asked Saint Peter for a profession of faith before promising him the Papacy (Matt. 16). Second confirmation: frequently the Fathers say that he who has not the faith cannot enjoy jurisdiction in the Church: Saint Cyprian (referred to in the chapter ‘Novatianus’, 7, q. 1; chapter ‘Didicimus’, 24, q. 1), Saint Ambrose (chapter ‘Verbum’, de Poenitentia, q. 1), Saint Gelasius (c. Achatius, 1) and Alexander II (chapter ‘Audivimus’, 24, q. 1), Saint Augustine (epist. 48 ad Vicent; lib. de Pastoribus), Saint Thomas (II-II, q. 39). Third confirmation, by a very simple argument: the heretic is not a member of the Church; therefore he is not its head either. Moreover: the heretic must not even be greeted, but must be absolutely avoided, as Saint Paul (Tit. 3) and Saint John (II Epist.) teach; a fortiori, therefore, he must not be obeyed. Finally: the heretical Pontiff denies Christ and the true Church; therefore he also denies himself and his office; therefore he is thereby deprived of it.”
2. The reasons which militate against this second opinion
rest above all on the visible character of the Church, in virtue of which it is impossible to admit the loss of jurisdiction for a reason in itself unknowable by the faithful.
Here is how Suarez develops his argumentation on this subject:
“The loss of faith by merely internal heresy does not entail the loss of the power of jurisdiction (…). This is proved first by the fact that (ecclesiastical) government would become very uncertain if the power depended on interior thoughts and faults. Another proof: since the Church is visible, it is fitting that her power of government cannot depend on mere interior thoughts. This is an ‘a priori’ reason, because in such a case the Church does not withdraw the power by her human law, since she does not judge of what is internal, as we shall say further on. And the power is not taken away either by the force of simple divine law, because that law is either natural, that is, connatural to the supernatural gifts themselves, or is established by positive determination. The first member of the dilemma cannot be accepted, because by the very nature of things one cannot demonstrate a necessary connection between faith and the power of jurisdiction; and also because the power of order is still more supernatural, and yet it is not lost, which is a truth of faith, as is set forth more amply in the treatise on the Sacraments in general, and as Saint Thomas teaches (II-II, q. 39, a. 3). Therefore, although faith is the foundation of sanctification and of the gifts that belong to it, it is not however the foundation of the other powers and graces, which are granted for the benefit of other men. The second member of the dilemma is set aside by 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 in conformity with reason that, just as ecclesiastical jurisdiction is conferred only by some human action — whether that action is only designative, that is, elective of the person, as in the case of the Sovereign Pontiff, or whether it is collative of the power, as in the other cases — so likewise it ought to be withdrawn only by some external action, because in both situations one must keep the due proportion, taking into account the condition and nature of man.”
Moreover, if one admitted that the Roman Pontiff could lose the Papacy by a heresy remaining purely interior, it would become impossible for the faithful to know with certainty who really possesses the supreme jurisdiction. All the visible assistance promised to the Church in her government would then become practically inoperative. Such a consequence appears incompatible with the essential visibility of the Church, constantly affirmed by the classical theologians.
Finally, this opinion confuses two distinct orders: the order of grace and that of jurisdiction. The loss of sanctifying grace can result from a purely interior act; on the other hand, the loss of a visible jurisdiction in a visible society normally requires an exterior fact capable of being juridically ascertained. Suarez insists precisely on this distinction.
3. Opinion abandoned today
Indeed, this opinion has practically disappeared from contemporary theology and no longer counts, to our knowledge, any notable defenders.
As we have seen, this second opinion — of the loss of the Pontificate by merely internal heresy — rests on the thesis, today abandoned by theologians, according to which even non-exteriorized heresy would determine the loss of the condition of member of the Church. Between these two positions there is not, however, a necessary link. Thus Cardinal Journet, although admitting that merely internal heresy excludes from the Church, nevertheless inclines toward the opinion according to which the heretical Pope is not “ipso facto” deposed. Suarez also considers that the internal heretic ceases to be a member of the Church, but he requires a declaratory act in order that the heretical Pope fall from the see of Peter. Indeed if Cardinal Journet admits that purely internal heresy can break the interior bond with the Church, even if this rupture remains invisible, he constantly distinguishes:
the visible body,
the soul of the Church.
Otherwise one might believe that he speaks of a juridical exclusion, which is not the case.
Conclusion
In more general terms, it is opportune to observe already now that, although there exists an intimate link between exclusion from the Church and the loss of the Papacy, a great number of theologians nevertheless do not judge that the first determines “ipso facto” the second.
One therefore understands that this opinion, according to which merely internal heresy determines the loss of the Pontificate, has been completely abandoned by theologians.
This opinion leads besides to an insoluble practical difficulty. During the whole time in which the heresy would remain secret, the whole Church would necessarily continue to obey a man who would already no longer be Pope. The acts of government accomplished during that period would then be surrounded by a permanent uncertainty, contrary to the principle of juridical security which characterizes the visible constitution of the Church. This argument follows directly from the teaching of Suarez.
Indeed, to admit the contrary would amount to subordinating the visible constitution of the Church to a purely interior fact and, consequently, unknowable by the faithful, which is precisely what Suarez intends to demonstrate as being incompatible with the very nature of the Church.
Notes
1 In this matter, as is evident, the arguments in favour of one opinion constitute in general objections to the others, and vice versa. Thus, in the chapter dedicated to each opinion, we shall expose only the reasons and the counter-reasons which contain something new.
In the present case, it is not necessary to indicate the foundations of the thesis according to which the Pope can become a heretic, because they are stated in the objections raised against the preceding opinion (pp. 8-13).
2 In the last centuries, no author of whom we have knowledge has defended this opinion. Among the ancients, its principal defender was Cardinal Torquemada (uncle of the inquisitor of the same name — see note 1 of p. 37).
3 Suarez, “De Fide”, disp. X, sect. VI, n. 2, p. 316.
4 Suarez, “De Legibus”, lib. IV, cap. VII, n. 7, p. 360.
5 The various positions of theologians on the moment when the heretic ceases to be a member of the Church can be seen in Salaverri, “De Eccl. Christi”, pp. 881-882.
6 See Journet, “L’Église…”, vol. II, p. 575, note 3; p. 821, note 3; p. 1064 (where he cites a passage of the Bull “Ineffabilis Deus”, of Pius IX).
7 See Journet, “L’Église…”, vol. II, p. 821, note 3.
8 See Salaverri, “De Eccl. Christi”, p. 881.
9 See the text of Suarez which we cite on pp. 21-23.
10 See the considerations which, on this subject, Suarez (pp. 21-23) and Saint Robert Bellarmine (p. 27) make.