Heretic Pope: Loses Office After Declaration
Fourth Opinion: The Heretic Pope Loses the Pontificate Only After the Intervention of a Declaratory Act
Table of Contents
Introduction
- Heretic Pope: Loses Office After Declaration
- Fourth Opinion: The Heretic Pope Loses the Pontificate Only After the Intervention of a Declaratory Act
- Defense of This Opinion by Suarez
- A Priori Arguments
- Confirmation by the Harmful Effects of an Automatic Loss
- Case of Occult Heresy and Repentance
- Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Heresy
- Refutation of This Opinion by Saint Robert Bellarmine
- Critique of Cajetan’s Distinction
- Arguments from the Fathers of the Church
- Incompatibility with the Church’s Authority over the Pope
Introduction
We adopt the classification presented by Saint Robert Bellarmine on the subject of a heretic Pope (“De Romano Pontifice”). Here is the fourth opinion.
According to this fourth opinion, the Pope never loses the pontificate by the sole fact of falling into heresy. For his destitution to be effective, it is necessary that there be a declaratory act of his defection in faith. As is evident, such a declaration cannot be a judicial decision in the strict sense, since the Pope has no superior on Earth to judge him [1]; rather, it will be a mere non-judicial declaration, by reason of which Jesus Christ Himself will depose the Pope.
The main defenders of this fourth opinion are Cajetan and Suarez [2].
- Defense of This Opinion by Suarez
After refuting the opinion according to which the heretic Pope is automatically “deposed” [3], Suarez defends his position in these terms:
“(…) in no case, not even in heresy, is the Pontiff deprived of his dignity and power immediately by God Himself, before the judgment and sentence of men. This is the common opinion today: Cajetan (de Auctoritate Papae, c. 18 et 19); Soto (4, d. 22, quaest. 2, art. 2); Cano (4 de Locis, c. ult. ad 12); Corduba (lib. 4, q. 11).
“Further on, when dealing with the penalties of heretics, we will indicate other authors, and in general we will show that by divine law no one is deprived of dignity and ecclesiastical jurisdiction by reason of the crime of heresy. Now we give an a priori argument: such destitution is a most grave penalty and would only be incurred ipso facto if it were expressed in divine law; now, no law is found that establishes this, either in general regarding heretics, or especially regarding Bishops, or in a most special way regarding the Pope [4].
“There is also no certain Tradition on this matter. Nor can the Pontiff lose his dignity ipso facto by force of a human law, for such law would have to be established either by an inferior, that is, by the Council, or by an equal, that is, by a previous Pope; but neither the Council nor a previous Pope has coercive power to punish his equal or superior. Therefore, etc.
(…) You will say that there may be an interpretative law of divine law. But this would have no foundation, because no such divine law is alleged; moreover, until now no law has been issued by the Councils or by the Pontiffs that interpreted such divine law.”
This is confirmed by the fact that such a law would be harmful to the Church; one could therefore in no way believe that it had been instituted by Christ; the antecedent is proved: if the Pope were an occult heretic, and for this reason had lost ipso facto his office, all his acts would be invalid.
You will say that this argument proves nothing regarding a notorious and public heretic. But this is not true, for if the external but occult heretic can still be the true Pope, he can likewise continue to be so in the case where the offense becomes known, as long as no sentence has been pronounced against him. And this, both because no one suffers a penalty except ipso facto or by sentence [5] and because this would entail even greater evils. Indeed, there would be doubt about the degree of infamy necessary for him to lose his office; schisms would result from this, and everything would become uncertain, especially if, after being known as a heretic, the Pope maintained his office by force or by other means, and exercised many acts of his office [6].
A second confirmation, which is of great importance: in the case where the Pope’s heresy becomes external, but occult, and then he repents sincerely, he would be placed in a situation of total perplexity: if he lost his office because of the heresy, he should absolutely abandon the pontificate, which is extremely grave and almost contrary to natural law, for it would amount to denouncing himself; but he could not retain the episcopate either, for that would be intrinsically evil.
This being so, even the defenders of the contrary opinion confess that in this case it would be licit to retain the episcopate, and that he would therefore be the true Pope; this is the common opinion of the canonists, with the Gloss (c. “Nunc autem”, d. 21). From this, an evident argument is inferred against them, since the pontifical office is not restored by God through penance, as grace is, for it is unheard of that one who is not the true Pope be made Pope by God without the election and ministry of men [7].
Finally, faith is not absolutely necessary for a man to be capable of spiritual and ecclesiastical jurisdiction and to exercise true acts requiring this jurisdiction; therefore, etc. The antecedent is clear, since, as taught in the treatises on penance and censures, in case of extreme necessity a heretic priest can absolve, which is not possible without jurisdiction [8].
(…) The heretic Pope is not a member of the Church as regards the substance and form that constitute the members of the Church; but he is head as regards office and action; and this is not surprising, since he is not the first and principal head that acts by its own power, but is in a way instrumental, he is the vicar of the first head, who can exercise His spiritual action on the members even through a bronze head; analogously, He sometimes baptizes through heretics, sometimes absolves, etc., as we have already said.
(…) I affirm: if he is a heretic and incorrigible, the Pope ceases to be Pope as soon as a declaratory sentence of his crime is pronounced against him by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church. This is the teaching commonly held by doctors, and it is deduced from the first epistle of Saint Clement I, in which it is read that Saint Peter taught that the heretic Pope must be deposed. The reason is the following: it would be most gravely harmful to the Church to have such a pastor and not be able to defend itself in such grave danger; moreover, it would be contrary to the dignity of the Church to oblige it to remain subject to a heretic Pontiff without being able to expel him; for such is the priest, such are the people; this is confirmed by the reasons adduced in favor of the previous opinion (of ipso facto deposition), especially that heresy “spreads like cancer,” for which reason heretics must be avoided as soon as possible, and therefore much more the heretic pastor; but how can he be avoided if he does not cease to be pastor?
(…) Regarding this conclusion, some explanations must be given.
In the first place, who should pronounce such a sentence? Some say the Cardinals; and the Church could without doubt attribute this faculty to them, especially if it were established by the consent and determination of the Supreme Pontiffs, as was done for the election. But until now we read nowhere that such judgment has been entrusted to them. Therefore, it must be said that, de iure, it belongs to all the Bishops of the Church. For, being ordinary pastors and pillars of the Church, it must be considered that this major cause pertains to them, and since by human law nothing is established on the matter, it must necessarily be held that the cause refers to all, and even to the General Council. This is the common opinion of doctors. One can see that Cardinal Albano expounds at length on this point (“De Cardinalibus”, q.35—edition of 1584, tom.13, p.2).
Second doubt: how could such a Council meet legitimately, since it belongs to the Pope to convoke it legitimately? It is answered, in the first place, that perhaps a proper General Council would not be necessary, but it would suffice that in each region provincial or national Councils be convened by the Archbishops or Primates, and that all arrive at the same conclusion. In the second place, if a General Council is convened to define things of faith or to promulgate universal laws, it is legitimate only if convoked by the Pope; but if it is convened to treat the matter of which we speak, which especially concerns the Pontiff himself and is in some way contrary to him, the Council can be legitimately convoked either by the College of Cardinals or by agreement among the Bishops; and if the Pontiff attempts to impede such a meeting, he should not be obeyed, for, acting against justice and the common good, he would be abusing his supreme power.
(…) From this arises the third doubt: by what right could the Pope be judged by this assembly, since it is inferior to him? On this, Cajetan strives extraordinarily not to be forced to admit that the Church or the Council is above the Pope in case of heresy; he concludes finally that they are above the Pope, not as Pope, but as a private person. This distinction, however, does not satisfy, for by the same argument one could say that the Church is head to judge and punish the Pope, not as Pope, but as a private person (…).
Others affirm that, in case of heresy, the Church is superior to the Pope. But this is difficult to admit, for Christ constituted the Pope as absolutely supreme judge; the canons also affirm this principle in general without distinctions; and, finally, the Church cannot exercise any act of jurisdiction over the Pope, and in electing him it does not confer power but designates the person to whom Christ directly confers power.
Therefore, in deposing a heretic Pope, the Church would not act as superior to him, but juridically, and by consent of Christ, it would declare him a heretic and therefore absolutely unworthy of pontifical honors [9]; he would then be ipso facto and immediately deposed by Christ, and once deposed he would become inferior and could be punished [10].
Moreover, Cajetan’s second affirmation, that the heretic Pope can be truly and authoritatively deposed by the Church, is no less false than the first. For if the Church deposes the Pope against his will, it is certainly above the Pope; yet Cajetan himself defends, in the same treatise, the contrary of this. Cajetan responds that the Church, in deposing the Pope, has no authority over the Pope, but only over the bond that unites the person to the Pontificate. In the same way that the Church, uniting the Pontificate to such a person, is not thereby above the Pontiff, so too the Church can separate the Pontificate from such a person in case of heresy, without saying that it is above the Pontiff.
But against this it must be observed in the first place that, from the fact that the Pope deposes Bishops, it is deduced that the Pope is above all Bishops, although the Pope in deposing a Bishop does not destroy the episcopal jurisdiction, but only separates it from that person. In the second place, to depose someone from the Pontificate against the will of the deposed is without doubt a penalty; therefore, the Church, in deposing a Pope against his will, without doubt punishes him; now, to punish is proper to a superior or judge. In the third place, given that, according to Cajetan and the other Thomists, in reality the whole and the parts taken together are the same thing, he who has authority over the parts taken together, being able to separate them from each other, also has authority over the proper whole constituted by those parts.
And the example of the electors given by Cajetan is worthless, who have the power to designate a certain person for the Pontificate, without however having power over the Pope. For, when something is being made, the action is exercised over the matter of the future thing, and not over the composite, as is evident in the consideration of natural things. Therefore, in creating the Pontiff, the Cardinals do not exercise their authority over the Pontiff, for he does not yet exist, but over the matter, that is, over the person who by the election becomes disposed to receive the Pontificate from God. But if after the Pontiff exists, they would necessarily exercise authority over the composite, that is, over the person endowed with pontifical power, that is, over the Pontiff [11].
The jurisdiction is lost, in principle, by the very fact of the fall into heresy (see pp.30-31), we verify that the affirmations of Saint Robert Bellarmine remain entirely defensible provided they are nuanced on these two points.
For a perfect understanding of what has just been said, it is necessary to have in mind what we observed in chapter VII of this Part I (pp.30ss.).
Saint Robert Bellarmine, “De Rom. Pont.”, lib.II, cap.30, pp.418-420 [12].
The Holy Fathers unanimously teach, not only that heretics are outside the Church, but also that they are ipso facto deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. Saint Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: “we affirm that absolutely all heretics and schismatics have no power or right,” and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even if they had previously been priests or Bishops in the Church. Saint Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor bind or loose. The same is taught by Saint Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., cap. 2), Saint Augustine (in Enchir., cap. 65), Saint Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer) (…) [13].
Pope Saint Celestine I (epist. ad Jo. Antioch., which figures in the Conc. of Ephesus, tom.I, cap.19) wrote: “It is evident that he remained and remains in our communion, and we do not consider deposed, he who has been excommunicated or deprived of office, whether episcopal or clerical, by Bishop Nestorius or by others who follow him, after these began to preach heresy. For the sentence of one who has already revealed himself as to be deposed cannot depose anyone.”
And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople, Pope Saint Celestine I says: “The authority of our Apostolic See has determined that the Bishop, cleric or simple Christian who has been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after these began to preach heresy, is not to be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who with such preachings has defected in faith cannot depose or remove anyone.”
The same is repeated and confirmed by Saint Nicholas I (Epist. ad Michael). Finally, Saint Thomas also teaches (S. Theol., I-II, 39, 3) that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and anything they attempt to do on the basis of some jurisdiction will be null. There is no foundation for what some respond to this: that these Fathers base themselves on ancient law, whereas currently, by the decree of the Council of Constance, only those nominally excommunicated and those who attack clerics lose jurisdiction. This argument—I say—has no value, for those Fathers, affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, do not allege any human law, which perhaps did not exist on the matter at that time, but argue based on the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance treats only of excommunicated, that is, of those who lose jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, whereas heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3,10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as Saint Jerome explains [14].
According to current Canon Law, there is no deposition “latae sententiae”; therefore, heretical Bishops and priests continue to occupy their offices and enjoy jurisdiction until they are deposed by their superiors (see note 5 on p.30). Does this determination contradict the principles that Saint Robert Bellarmine expounds in the passage quoted here?
In part yes, for he does not admit in any way the permanence of jurisdiction in the manifest heretic. However, if we consider that the Pope can sustain, for the good of the Church, jurisdiction in the heretic (see pp.31-32), and if we consider that the holder of the [15] jurisdiction loses it, in principle, by the very fact of his fall into heresy (see pp.30-31), we verify that the affirmations of Saint Robert Bellarmine remain entirely defensible provided they are nuanced on these two points.
For a perfect understanding of what has just been said, it is necessary to have in mind what we observed in chapter VII of this Part I (pp.30ss.).
Saint Robert Bellarmine, “De Rom. Pont.”, lib.II, cap.30, pp.418-420 [16].
—
[1] This affirmation of Suarez does not seem founded. For Saint Paul (Tit. 3,10) and Saint John (Jn. 10-11) command that we avoid the heretic. Now—asks Saint Robert Bellarmine in contesting Suarez—“how could we avoid our own head? How could we distance ourselves from a member united to us?” (we quote this text in full on p.24).
[2] We recall that Suarez is a supporter of the first opinion, defending this fourth only in the hypothesis—which he judges less probable—that the Pontiff may fall into heresy (see the text we quoted on p.8).—Cajetan, on the contrary, positively admits the possibility of the Pope’s defection in faith (“De Comparatione…”, pp.112ss.), as was indeed the common opinion in his time.
[3] Already it has become classic in this matter the use of the term “deposition” in a sense different from the vulgar. Current, for example, are the aphorisms “Papa haereticus est depositus” (“the heretic Pope is deposed”) and “Papa haereticus non est depositus sed deponendus” (“the heretic Pope is not deposed, but must be deposed”)—aphorisms that express respectively the theses of automatic loss of the Papacy and loss after declaration (see explanation in Journet, “L’Eglise…”, vol.I, p.626).
[4] The use of the term “deposition”… [full as in the Portuguese original note 2].
[5] As we see, the opinion impugned here by Suarez is the fifth… [full as in Portuguese].
[6] It is unquestionable that the concrete application… [full as in Portuguese].
[7] Today it would not sound so bad… [full as in Portuguese].
[8] See pp.30-31 the observations… [full as in Portuguese].
[9] Here is the principal objection… [full as in Portuguese].
[10] This is the central point… [full as in Portuguese].
[11] Moreover, the second affirmation of Cajetan… [full as in Portuguese].
[12] Saint Robert Bellarmine, “De Rom. Pont.”, lib.II, cap.30, pp.418-420.
[13] The Holy Fathers unanimously teach… [full as in Portuguese].
[14] According to current Canon Law… [full as in Portuguese].
[15] The jurisdiction is lost… [full as in Portuguese].
[16] For a perfect understanding… [full as in Portuguese final note].