Fourth Opinion – The Heretical Pope
Does Not Effectively Lose the Pontificate
Until After the Intervention
of a Declaratory Act of His Heresy
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
- Defence of this opinion by Suarez
Note 1
Note 2
- Refutation of this opinion by Saint Robert Bellarmine
- Note
Note on the SSPX by the editor (Abbé Eric Jacqmin)
Other notes
Introduction
According to this fourth opinion, the Pope never loses the Pontificate by the mere fact of his fall into heresy. Rather, for his destitution to be effective, there must be a declaratory act of his defection in the faith. As is evident, such a declaration cannot be a juridical decision in the strict sense, since there exists on earth no superior of the Roman Pontiff who can judge him. (1) : but it will be a simple non-juridical declaration, by reason of which Jesus Christ Himself immediately withdraws the Pontificate from him.
The principal defenders of this fourth opinion are Cajetan and Suarez (2).
- Defence of this opinion by Suarez
After having refuted the opinion according to which the heretical Pope is automatically “deposed” (3), Suarez defends his position in the following terms:
“(…) in no case, even that of heresy, is the Pontiff deprived of his dignity and of his power immediately by God Himself, before the judgment and sentence of men. This is the common opinion today: Cajetan (de Auctoritate Papae, c. 18 and 19); Soto (4, d. 22, quaest. 2, art. 2); Cano (4 de Locis, c. ult. ad 12); Corduba (lib. 4, q. 11). Later, in treating of the penalties of heretics, we shall indicate still other authors, and we shall show in a general manner that, by divine law, no one is deprived of his dignity and of his ecclesiastical jurisdiction because of the crime of heresy. We now give an a priori argument: given that such a destitution is one of the gravest penalties, one would incur it ipso facto only if it were expressed in the divine law; now, we find no law that establishes it, neither in general as regards heretics, nor in particular as regards bishops, nor in a very particular manner as regards the Pope (4). Nor is there a certain Tradition on this question. The Pope cannot lose his dignity ipso facto by virtue of a human law either, because this law would have to be established by an inferior, that is, by a Council, or by an equal, that is, by a preceding Pope; but neither a Council nor a preceding Pope possesses such coercive power that they can punish their equal or their superior. Therefore, etc.
“(…) You will say that there could be a law interpreting the divine law. But that would be without foundation, because you cite no such divine law; moreover, up to the present, no Council nor any Pope has established a law that would have interpreted such a divine law.
“This is confirmed by the fact that such a law would be harmful to the Church; one could therefore in no case believe that it had been instituted by Christ; what precedes is proved: if the Pope were an occult heretic, and for that reason had lost his office ipso facto, all his acts would be invalid.
“You will say that this argument proves nothing as regards a notorious and public heretic. But that is not true, because if the external but occult heretic can still be the true Pope, he can likewise continue to be so in the case where the offence became known, so long as no sentence has been pronounced against him. And this, both because no one suffers a penalty except ipso facto or by a sentence (5) and because that would entail still greater evils. Indeed, there would be a doubt about the degree of infamy necessary for him to lose his office; schisms would result from that, 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 heresy of the Pope became external, but occult, and he afterwards sincerely repented, he would be placed in a situation of total perplexity: if he has lost his office by reason of heresy, he would have to abandon the pontificate absolutely, which is extremely grave and almost contrary to the natural law, because that would amount to denouncing himself; but he could not retain the episcopate either, because 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, and that of the Gloss (c. Nunc autem, d. 21). From this one infers an evident argument against them, because, given that the pontifical office is not restored by God through penance, as grace is, it is unheard of that one who is not the true Pope should be made Pope by God without the election and ministry of men (7).
“Finally, the faith is not absolutely necessary for a man to be capable of spiritual and ecclesiastical jurisdiction and to be able to exercise true acts that require this jurisdiction; therefore, etc. What precedes is evident, given that, as the treatises on penance and censures teach, in a case of extreme necessity a heretical priest can absolve, which is not possible without jurisdiction (8).
“(…) The heretical Pope is not a member of the Church as regards the substance and the form that constitute the members of the Church; but he is the head as regards the office and the action; and this is not surprising, because he is not the first and principal head who acts by his own power, but he is in some way instrumental, he is the vicar of the principal head, who can exercise his spiritual action on the members even through a head of bronze; analogously, He sometimes baptizes through heretics, sometimes He 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 the doctors, and it is deduced from the first epistle of Saint Clement I, in which one reads that Saint Peter taught that the heretical Pope must be deposed. The reason is the following: It would be extremely harmful to the Church to have such a pastor and not to be able to defend herself in so grave a danger; moreover, it would be contrary to the dignity of the Church to oblige her to remain subject to a heretical Pontiff without being able to expel him; for as is the priest, so is the people; this is confirmed by the reasons alleged in favour of the preceding opinion (of deposition ipso facto), especially that which says that heresy ‘spreads like a cancer’, for which reason heretics must be avoided as soon as possible, and therefore much more the heretical pastor; but how can he be avoided if he does not cease to be pastor?
Note 1
This argumentation nevertheless appears to involve a difficulty. If the publicly heretical Pontiff really retains jurisdiction until a declaration of the Church, it follows precisely that a man separated from the Church can continue to govern this same Church juridically during all the time necessary for the gathering of that assembly and for the issuing of its declaration. Such a consequence appears hardly reconcilable with the very end of ecclesiastical authority, which is to preserve the unity of the faith and to protect the faithful against errors, rather than to permit a publicly heretical head to continue to exercise the government of the Church.
“(…) Concerning 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 this were established by the consent and determination of the Sovereign Pontiffs, as has been done for the election. But up to the present we read nowhere that such a judgment has been entrusted to them. Consequently, it must be said that, of right, it belongs to all the Bishops of the Church. For, being ordinary pastors and columns of the Church, one must consider that this major cause belongs to them, and since by human law nothing is established on the matter, one must necessarily hold that the cause refers to all, and even to the general Council. This is the common opinion of the doctors. One can see that Cardinal Albano treats this point at length (“De Cardinalibus”, q.35 – edition of 1584, tom.13, p.2).
“Second doubt: how could such a Council assemble legitimately, since it belongs to the Pope to convoke it legitimately? One answers, 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 convoked by the Archbishops or Primates, and that all arrive at the same conclusion. In the second place, if a general Council is convoked to define things of faith or to promulgate universal laws, it is legitimate only if it is convoked by the Pope; but if it is convoked to treat of the matter of which we speak, which concerns the Pontiff himself in a special way and is in some manner 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 prevent such a meeting, one must not obey him, because, acting against justice and the common good, he would abuse 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? (9). On this, Cajetan strives extraordinarily in order not to be forced to admit that the Church or the Council is above the Pope in case of heresy; he finally concludes that they are above the Pope, not as Pope, but as a private person. This distinction, however, does not satisfy, because by the same argument one could say that the Church is head in order 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, because Christ constituted the Pope as absolutely supreme judge; the canons also affirm this principle in a general manner without distinctions; and, finally, the Church can exercise no act of jurisdiction over the Pope, and in electing him she does not confer the power but designates the person to whom Christ confers the power directly.
“Consequently, in deposing a heretical Pope, the Church would not act as superior to him, but juridically, and by the consent of Christ, she would declare him a heretic and therefore absolutely unworthy of the pontifical honours (10); he would then be ipso facto (11) and immediately deposed by Christ, and once deposed he would become inferior and could be punished (12).
Note 2
This construction nevertheless raises a major difficulty. It appears to introduce, between the crime of heresy and the loss of the Pontificate, an extrinsic condition. Now Suarez himself affirms that he finds no law establishing this condition and that there is no certain Tradition on this question. If that is the case, on what positive foundation then does the necessity of a prior declaration rest before Christ withdraws the pontifical jurisdiction?
- Refutation of this opinion by Saint Robert Bellarmine
Saint Robert Bellarmine, who did not approve this fourth opinion, refutes it thus (13):
“The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom (de auctor. papae et conc., cap. 20 and 21) the manifestly heretical Pope is not ipso facto deposed (14), but can and must be deposed by the Church. In my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first place, it is proved by arguments of authority and of reason that the manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed. The argument of authority is founded on Saint Paul (Epist. ad Titum, 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two admonitions, that is, after having shown himself manifestly obstinate – which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what Saint Jerome writes, adding that other sinners are excluded from the Church by a sentence of excommunication, but that heretics exile themselves and separate themselves from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, because how could we be obliged to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us? This principle is very certain. The non-Christian can in no way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ibidem, cap. 26). The reason is that he cannot be the head of that of which he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as Saint Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), Saint Athanasius (Ser. 2 cont. Arian.), Saint Augustine (lib. de grat. Christ. cap. 20), Saint Jerome (cont. Lucifer.) and others clearly teach; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.
“To this Cajetan replies (in Apol. pro tract. Praedicto cap. 25 and in ipso tract. cap. 22) that the heretic is not a Christian simpliciter, but is one secundum quid. For, given that two things constitute the Christian – the faith and the character –, the heretic, having lost the faith, is still in a certain manner united to the Church and capable of jurisdiction; therefore he is also Pope, but he must be set aside, since he is disposed, with an ultimate disposition, to cease to be Pope; like the man who is not yet dead but is in extremis.
“Against this; in the first place, if the heretic, by virtue of the character, remained united in act to the Church, he could never be cut off or separated from it in act, because the character is indelible. But there is no one who denies that certain persons can be separated in act from the Church. Therefore the character does not make the heretic be in the Church in act, but is only a sign that he was there and that he must return there. Analogously, when the sheep wanders lost in the mountains, the mark imprinted on it does not make it be in the fold, but indicates from which fold it has fled and to which fold it must be brought back. This truth has a confirmation in Saint Thomas who says (Summa Th. III, 8, 3) that those who have not the faith are not united in act to Christ, but only potentially – and Saint Thomas here speaks of the internal union, and not of the external union produced by the confession of faith and the visible signs. Therefore, as the character is something internal, and not external, according to Saint Thomas the character alone does not unite a man in act to Christ.
“Moreover against the argument of Cajetan; either the faith is a disposition necessary simpliciter for someone to be Pope, or it is necessary only in order to be Pope in a more perfect manner (ad bene esse). In the first hypothesis, in the case where this disposition is eliminated by the contrary disposition, which is heresy, the Pope immediately ceases to be Pope; because the form cannot maintain itself without the necessary dispositions. In the second hypothesis, the Pope cannot be deposed by reason of heresy, because otherwise he should also be deposed for ignorance, improbity, and other similar causes, which prevent the science, the probity and the other dispositions necessary for him to be Pope in a more perfect manner (ad bene esse papae). Moreover, Cajetan recognizes (tract. praed., ca. 26) that the Pope cannot be deposed for the lack of the dispositions necessary, not simpliciter, but only for a greater perfection (ad bene esse).
“To this Cajetan replies that the faith is a disposition necessary simpliciter, but partial, and not total; and that, therefore, the faith disappearing, the Pope can still continue to be Pope, by reason of the other part of the disposition, which is the character, which still persists.
“Against this argument: either the total disposition, constituted by the character and by the faith, is necessary simpliciter, or it is not, the partial disposition then being sufficient. In the first hypothesis, the faith disappearing, there no longer remains the disposition necessary simpliciter, because the disposition necessary simpliciter was the total one, and the total one no longer exists. In the second hypothesis, the faith is necessary only for a more perfect manner of being (ad bene esse), and therefore its absence does not justify the deposition of the Pope. Moreover, that which is found in the ultimate disposition to death immediately ceases to exist afterwards, without the intervention of any other external force, as is evident; therefore the heretical Pope also ceases to be Pope by himself, without any deposition.
“Finally, the Holy Fathers all 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 nor 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 nor 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.) (…).
“Pope Saint Celestine I (epist. ad Jo. Antioch., which figures in the Council of Ephesus, tom. I, cap. 19) wrote: ‘It is evident that he has remained and remains in our communion, and we do not consider deposed, him 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 him who has already shown himself as one who ought 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 partisans, after these began to preach heresy, must not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who with such preachings has failed in the 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., II-II, 39, 3) that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and that what they attempt to do on the basis of some jurisdiction will be null.
“There is no foundation for what some reply to this: that these Fathers base themselves on the ancient law, whereas at present, by the decree of the Council of Constance, only those lose jurisdiction who are nominally excommunicated and those who assault clerics. This argument – I say – has no value, because these Fathers, affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, allege no human law, which perhaps did not exist on the matter at that time, but argue on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance treats only of the 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 (15).
“Moreover, the second affirmation of Cajetan, that the heretical Pope can be truly and authoritatively deposed by the Church, is not less false than the first. For if the Church deposes the Pope against his will, she is certainly above the Pope; yet Cajetan himself defends, in the same treatise, the contrary of that. Cajetan replies 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, in uniting the Pontificate to such a person, is not for that reason above the Pontiff, so the Church can separate the Pontificate from such a person in case of heresy, without saying that she is above the Pontiff.
“But against this it must be observed in the first place that, from the fact that the Pope deposes Bishops, one deduces that the Pope is above all the 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 among themselves, also has authority over the proper whole constituted by these parts.
“And the example of the electors given by Cajetan is worth nothing, who have the power to designate a certain person for the Pontificate, without however having power over the Pope. For, when something is in the process of being made, the action is exercised on the matter of the future thing, and not on the compound, as becomes patent in the consideration of the things of nature. Consequently, in creating the Pontiff, the Cardinals do not exercise their authority over the Pontiff, because he does not yet exist, but over the matter, that is, over the person who by the election becomes disposed to receive from God the Pontificate. But if they deposed the Pontiff, they would necessarily exercise authority over the compound, that is, over the person endowed with the pontifical power, that is, over the Pontiff (16).
- Note
Note on the SSPX 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 improbable opinion which has just been treated is the official position of the SSPX from its beginning.
They follow, like the Dominicans of Avrillé, the opinion of Cajetan and of John of Saint Thomas, according to which a pope loses his office by public heresy, but that this loss must be declared by a council of cardinals or of bishops. During the sixty years of vacancy, they have never wanted to declare the vacancy, neither individually, nor in council. See the articles of their theologian Abbé Toulza on this subject on their site La Porte Latine.
What aggravates their position to the point of scandal and grave sin is that Mgr Tissier de Mallerais personally avowed to me, in July 2015 at Quiévrain, that he knows “that the popes of Vatican II are heretics and that, consequently, they are not popes, but that we (the bishops and the superiors of the SSPX) will not declare it, otherwise we will lose too many faithful and priests who will not follow us”. He said that, according to him, there remain only three true Catholic bishops (the bishops of the SSPX), but that they will never assemble in council to declare the vacancy.
This is to deceive the faithful and the priests who, for example, must promise, before the open tabernacle, on the eve of their ordination to major orders, to accept the (anti)popes after Vatican II as true popes.
Mgr Lefebvre himself would have avowed the same thing, according to the testimonies of Abbé Guépin (his testimony circulates on the Internet in a YouTube video) and of Mr François Croonen (Brussels), whom I know personally.
Mgr Fellay, their superior, also avowed to me shortly afterwards that a heretical pope loses the papacy, but that Vatican II contains no heresies, only less grave errors.
Now, in 2017, the same Mgr Bernard Fellay was one of the eminent personalities to sign the “Correctio filialis” addressed to the (anti)pope Francis, then occupant of the Apostolic See, denouncing as “heresies” the errors propagated under his authority. They nevertheless continue to accept him as pope. Let us pray for those who go astray.
Mgr de Galarreta, knowing that I had become a sedevacantist, said to certain faithful: “let him do it”, which amounts to admitting that I was not wrong.
Yet the SSPX expelled me shortly afterwards, on 15 August 2015, “for sedevacantism and criticism of the superiors”. Blessed are the persecuted!
Then their mortal sins accumulate: they follow the antipopes in their directives on fasting, abstinence (grave matters), canon law, in the matter of indulgences and of jurisdiction (which touches the validity of confessions and of marriages). It is therefore objectively a grave matter, and one can, even with great sadness of heart, say that they are probably formal mortal sins, because they are committed in full confessed consciousness. Incomprehensible that one can thus cruelly maltreat the Church, one’s own soul, that of the faithful and of the priests, and the honour of God.
Mgr Lefebvre said many other times, concerning these popes, that he had a doubt about their office (in his “Spiritual Conferences” at Ecône).
But the Church teaches: “papa dubius, papa nullus” (a doubtful pope is not pope).
Indeed the adage “Papa dubius, papa nullus” is attested by theologians prior to 1964. Its exact scope concerns a serious doubt about the pontifical title.
Cajetan writes: “Distinguendum est enim de Papa dubio vel certo” — “One must distinguish the doubtful pope from the certain pope.” He specifies that he of whom one does not know whether he has been legitimately elected “tamquam non Papa obedire tenetur” — “must obey as not being pope”. The text figures in De comparatione auctoritatis Papae et Concilii, number 111, page 60 of the edition consulted. This is a primary and direct proof of the practical rule.
Bellarmine gives the formula: “At dubius Papa habetur pro non Papa” — “Now the doubtful pope is held as non-pope”. His remark concerns the discernment of the true pope in a period of schism, in De conciliis et Ecclesia, book II, chapter 19.
The demonstrated conclusion is therefore this: so long as an objective and serious doubt prevents one from recognizing with certainty a legitimate election, the pretender cannot exact the obedience due to a certain pope.
The SSPX which follows Cajetan in its opinion on the heretical pope does not follow this author concerning the doubtful pope. It is a fair of opinions.
Therefore the SSPX is not truly Catholic; its official practical position is rather schismatic inasmuch as it recognizes and follows antipopes and refuses the solution of executing the solution that they propose: a common declaration of the bishops.
I shall return to this later in another chapter. But, being myself a former member of the SSPX, I speak of it here because I am disgusted at having been abused by their superiors until I discovered the truth. He who seeks finds, and a child of Mary cannot long go astray (read de Montfort, Treatise on True Devotion).
Other notes
(1) This fourth opinion is therefore absolutely not the same as conciliarism – a theory condemned as heretical according to which the Council would be superior to the Pope, being capable of judging him and of deposing him.
(2) Suarez is a partisan of the first opinion, defending this fourth only in the hypothesis – which he judges less probable – that the Pontiff can fall into heresy. Cajetan, on the contrary, positively admits the possibility of the defection of the Pope in the faith.
(3) The term “deposition” is employed here in the classical theological sense of loss of the pontificate.
(4) This affirmation of Suarez does not seem founded. Saint Paul (Tit. 3,10) and Saint John (II Jn 10-11) command that the heretic be avoided.
(5) The dilemma presented by Suarez is valid, but he does not perceive that according to the fifth opinion there is a complex fact entailing automatic loss.
(6) The fifth opinion is that to which Saint Robert Bellarmine adheres.
(7) Today this thesis does not sound so bad to the ears of many theologians. Saint Alphonsus de Liguori admits in principle such an eventuality.
(8) See the observations on the incompatibility in root, but not absolute, between heresy and ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
(9) Here is found the principal objection that can be raised against this fourth opinion.
(10) Here is the central point – and which seems to us weak – of the argumentation of Suarez.
(11) One must not confuse the deposition ipso facto of the fifth opinion with that to which Suarez refers here.
(12) Suarez, De Fide, disp. X, sect. VI, nn. 3-10, pp. 316-318.
(13) In the text cited below, Saint Robert Bellarmine presents and refutes the principal reasons alleged by Cajetan.
(14) We recall that the term “deposition” is employed by Saint Robert Bellarmine in the generic sense of the loss of the pontificate.
(15) According to the current Canon Law in force (1917), there is no deposition latae sententiae; consequently heretical bishops and priests continue to occupy their offices… Does this determination contradict the principles set forth by Saint Robert Bellarmine? In part yes… we verify that the affirmations of Saint Robert Bellarmine remain entirely defensible provided they are nuanced on these two points.
(16) Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Rom. Pont., lib. II, cap. 30, pp. 418-420.