Loss of Papacy: ipso facto, by internal heresy
Second opinion: In falling into heresy,
even simply internal,
the Pope loses ipso facto the pontificate
Main source: “La Nouvelle Messe de Paul VI : qu’en penser ?”
by Prof. Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira
Table of contents
Introduction
- Arguments in favor of this opinion
Exposition and refutation by Suarez
- Reasons against this opinion
Refutation by Suarez
Dilemma posed
- An opinion abandoned today
Conclusion
Notes
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 supporters of this second opinion do not exclude, taking into account the arguments already set forth¹, that the Pope may 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 external manifestation of his heresy.
- In favour of this opinion several arguments are advanced, which Suarez then exposes and refutes². After having shown, on the basis of a passage of Scripture, that faith is the foundation of the Church, Suarez writes:
“Consequently, 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 this is the reason given to explain why Christ asked Saint Peter for a profession of faith before promising him the Papacy (Matt. 16). Second confirmation: the Fathers frequently say that he who does not have the faith cannot enjoy jurisdiction in the Church: Saint Cyprian (referred to in cap. “Novatianus”, 7, q. 1; cap. “Didicimus”, 24, q. 1), Saint Ambrose (cap. “Verbum”, de Poenitentia, q. 1), Saint Gelasius (c. Achatius, 1) and Alexander II (cap. “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; with even stronger reason, 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 it³.”
- The reasons that militate against this second opinion are based 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 to the faithful.
– Here is how Suarez develops his argumentation on this subject:
“The loss of faith by heresy that is merely internal 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 power depended on thoughts and interior faults. Another proof: since the Church is visible, it is fitting that its power of government cannot depend on mere interior thoughts. This is an ‘a priori’ reason, for in such a case the Church does not withdraw the power by its human right, since it does not judge what is internal, as we shall say further on. Nor is the power taken away by the force of mere divine right, because this 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 even more supernatural, and yet it is not lost, which constitutes a truth of faith, as is more amply set forth in the treatise on the Sacraments in general, and as Saint Thomas teaches (II-II, q. 39, a. 3). Consequently, although faith is the foundation of sanctification and of the gifts that belong to it, it is however not 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 positive-divine right. Finally, it is in accordance with reason that, just as ecclesiastical jurisdiction is conferred only by some human action — whether this action be merely designative, that is, elective of the person, as in the case of the Sovereign Pontiff, or collative of the power, as in the other cases —, so also it must be withdrawn only by some external action, for in both situations due proportion must be kept, taking into account the condition and nature of man⁴.”
– Moreover, if one admitted that the Roman Pontiff could lose the Papacy by a heresy that remained purely interior, it would become impossible for the faithful to know with certainty who really possesses supreme jurisdiction. All the visible assistance promised to the Church in its government would then become practically inoperative. Such a consequence appears incompatible with the essential visibility of the Church, constantly affirmed by 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 susceptible of being juridically established. Suarez insists precisely on this distinction.
- 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 — on the loss of the Pontificate by heresy that is merely internal — rests on the thesis, today abandoned by theologians, according to which even non-exteriorised heresy would determine the loss of the condition of member of the Church⁵. Between these two positions, however, there is no necessary link. Thus Cardinal Journet, although admitting that internal heresy alone excludes from the Church⁶, nevertheless inclines towards the opinion according to which the heretical Pope is not “ipso facto” deposed⁷. Suarez also considers that the internal heretic ceases to be a member of the Church⁸, but he requires a declaratory act for the heretical Pope to fall from the See of Peter⁹. 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 is speaking of a juridical exclusion, which is not the case.
Conclusion
In more general terms, it is opportune to observe from now on 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 second¹⁰.
One therefore understands that this opinion, according to which heresy that is merely internal determines the loss of the Pontificate, has been completely abandoned by theologians.
This opinion moreover leads to an insoluble practical difficulty. During the entire period 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 this period would then be surrounded by a permanent uncertainty, contrary to the principle of legal security that characterises the visible constitution of the Church. This argument flows 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 to 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 generally constitute objections to the others, and vice versa. Thus, in the chapter dedicated to each opinion, we shall set forth only the reasons and counter-reasons that 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, for 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 the theologians on the moment when the heretic ceases to be a member of the Church may be seen in Salaverri, “De Eccl. Christi”, pp. 881-882.
⁶ See Journet, “L’Eglise…”, vol. II, p. 575, note 3; p. 821, note 3; p. 1064 (where he cites a passage from the Bull “Ineffabilis Deus”, of Pius IX).
⁷ See Journet, “L’Eglise…”, vol. II, p. 821, note 3.
⁸ See Salaverri, “De Eccl. Christi”, p. 881.
⁹ See the text of Suarez that we quote on pp. 21-23.
¹⁰ See the considerations that, on this subject, Suarez (pp. 21-23) and Saint Robert Bellarmine (p. 27) make.