The Case of Paul VI Pope Becoming Antipope
Become Formal Heretic Has Lost His Office
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Section 1: Definitions and Fundamental Distinctions
1.1. Definition of Heresy and Its Consequences
1.2. Distinction Heresy Material/Formal
1.3. Pertinacity
1.4. Resistance
Section 2: The Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio of Paul IV and the Certain Doctrinal Principle
Section 3: The Infallibility of the Universal Peaceful Acceptance (U.P.A.)
Section 4: The Public and Manifest Heresies of Vatican II and of Paul VI
Section 5: Indefectibility of the Church and Continuity in Time of Crisis
Section 6: Historical and Canonical Analysis of the Case of Paul VI
6.1. 1963: Election and U.P.A.
6.2. 1964: Public and Manifest Heresy and Ontological Loss
6.3. Immediate Resistance
6.4. 1964-1971: Period of Progressive Recognition
6.5. Fidelity to the Bull and U.P.A.
Section 7: Supplementary Arguments
7.1. The Heretical Pope Cannot Be the Proximate Rule of Faith
7.2. The Unity of Faith Is Constitutive of the Church
7.3. Impossibility of Two Contradictory Magisteria
7.4. Visibility of the Church
7.5. Impossibility of an Officially Non-Binding Magisterium
7.6. Visibility of the Rule of Faith
7.7. Formal Continuity of the Church
7.7. Against the Objection of the Absence of Declaration
Section 8: Refutation of Counter-Arguments
Conclusion
Introduction
According to the immutable doctrine of the Catholic Church, founded on the Scriptures, the Fathers, the Doctors and the ecumenical councils before 1963, public and manifest heresy entails the ontological loss of belonging to the Church and, consequently, of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction. We shall demonstrate here, by the establishment of the facts and of a logical reasoning, that Paul VI manifested public and manifest heresies, placing him outside the Church.
This study examines the case of Paul VI in detail: his initial legitimacy confirmed infallibly by the Universal Peaceful Acceptance (U.P.A.) at the time of his election in 1963; the ontological and automatic loss of his office (as regards the subject of jurisdiction) by public and manifest heresy in 1964, at the time of the promulgation of the constitution Lumen Gentium; the subsequent resistance of the faithful Catholics as a negative sign of non-adherence to the heretic; finally, the formal and progressive recognition of this vacancy, culminating with the first public declarations in 1971 by Father Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga in La Nueva Iglesia Montiniana. This analysis reconciles the bull of Paul IV (which attests the certain doctrinal principle that a manifest heretic cannot hold the supreme jurisdiction) with the infallibility of the U.P.A. (which guarantees the initial moral legitimacy, but whose peacefulness is broken by the subsequent heresy, as a simple negative sign).
Section 1: Definitions and Fundamental Distinctions
1.1. Definition of Heresy and Its Consequences: Heresy is the obstinate rejection, after baptism, of a truth of divine and Catholic faith proposed as such by the Church. A public doctor who promulgates documents containing heresies manifests a pertinacity, presumed moral and juridical by the very nature of the official and public act (held ex officio to know the faith, without possible invincible ignorance). Manifest heretics lose ipso facto all jurisdiction, as explained by Saint Robert Bellarmine: « Manifestus haereticus nullo modo est de Ecclesia. » (Translation: « The manifest heretic is in no way a member of the Church. ») (De Romano Pontifice, book II, chapter 30).
Canon No. 2314 of the Code of Canon Law (1917) presupposes this doctrine for inferior clerics, but the ontological loss of the pontificate pertains to divine law.
1.2. Distinction Heresy Material/Formal: Material heresy is an objective error against the faith, but without subjective culpability. Formal heresy implies a conscious and voluntary obstinacy.
1.3. Pertinacity: It is presumed among public doctors by the nature of the act, not by psychological judgement. The classical canonical tradition, reported notably by Rufinus and the decretists, teaches: « Prima sedes non judicabitur a quoquam nisi in fidei articulis pertinaciter erraverit ». (Translation: « The first see shall be judged by no one unless it has erred pertinaciously in the articles of faith. ») (D.T.C., 1927, Tome 7th, 2nd part, p. 1714.)
From the strict doctrinal point of view, there does not exist an ontological grey period: the vacancy is immediate in divine law; the human recognition is progressive in historical fact.
1.4. Resistance: It constitutes a negative sign of non-adherence; it is a probable theological opinion that it indicates implicitly the vacancy, without creating it.
Section 2: The Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio of Paul IV and the Certain Doctrinal Principle
The bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio (15 February 1559) declares: « Si contingat aliquem… ante suam promotionem vel elevationem… a fide catholica deviasse vel in aliquam haeresim incidisse… promotio… est nulla, irrita et inanis ». (Translation: « If it should happen that someone… before his promotion or elevation… has deviated from the Catholic faith or has fallen into some heresy… his promotion is null, invalid and without effect. ») Without constitutive declaration, but the ascertainment may be required for the external order, in order to establish the public fact.
The bull strongly attests the certain doctrinal principle, taught by the common theology: a manifest heretic cannot be a member of the Church and, from then on, cannot be its head. This principle applies to posterior heresy by the very nature of manifest heresy.
Section 3: The Infallibility of the Universal Peaceful Acceptance (U.P.A.)
The initial moral universal peaceful acceptance is an infallible dogmatic fact as regards the legitimacy of the election; perseverance in the office depends on the conservation of the conditions required by divine law, notably belonging to the Church. The ulterior resistance is a simple negative sign that the pontiff has fallen afterwards into heresy.
Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 1, a. 10 (Leonine edition): essential extract: « Una fides debet esse in tota Ecclesia… Quae unitas servari non posset si quaestio fidei orta… determinari non posset ab eo qui toti Ecclesiae praeest ». (Translation: « There must be one single faith in the whole Church… Such unity could not be safeguarded if a question of faith raised could not be decided by him who presides over the whole Church. »)
Section 4: The Public and Manifest Heresies of Vatican II and of Paul VI
A teaching that contradicts a defined dogma is heretical. The Council Vatican I (Dei Filius) declares: « Si quis dixerit… anathema sit. » (Translation: « If anyone says… let him be anathema. »)
Rigorous example: Gaudium et Spes no. 12: « Believers and unbelievers are generally in agreement on this point: everything on earth must be ordered to man as to its centre and its summit. » The material proposition poses man as centre and summit of everything on earth. Its objective theological qualification is heretical, for it formally contradicts the defined doctrine on the primacy of God as ultimate end, subordinating the temporal order to the supernatural. This contradicts the Syllabus of Pius IX, proposition 3: « Humana ratio, nullo prorsus Dei habito respectu, unicus est veri et falsi, boni et mali arbiter; sibi ipsi est lex et naturalibus suis viribus ad hominum ac populorum bonum curandum sufficit. » (Translation: « Human reason, without having regard to God, is the sole arbiter of the true and the false, of the good and the evil; it is its own law, and suffices, by its natural forces, to procure the good of men and of peoples. »)
Rigorous example: Lumen Gentium introduces a collegiality where the episcopal college is subject of the supreme jurisdiction with the pope, directly contradicting Pastor Aeternus (Vatican I) which affirms that the Roman pontiff is the unique subject of the full and immediate supreme jurisdiction – contradiction bearing on the very subject of the supreme jurisdiction, pertaining to the divine constitution of the Church.
Paul VI promulgated and maintained these heresies, manifesting public pertinacity.
Section 5: Indefectibility of the Church and Continuity in Time of Crisis
The doctrine of the indefectibility of the Catholic Church is a truth of divine and Catholic faith, founded on divine Revelation and affirmed by the constant magisterium of the Church before 1963. It guarantees that the Church, instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ, perseveres until the end of time without ever failing in its essential properties: its visibility, its unity, its holiness, its catholicity, its apostolicity, its infallibility and its Magisterium.
In effect, the perpetuity of the New Law, according to Saint Thomas Aquinas, confirms the indefectibility of the Church as visible society until the end of time. In the Summa Theologica (I-II, q. 106, a. 4), he teaches exactly: « The state of this world can undergo two sorts of changes: 1° A change of law. In this sense, no other state must succeed that of the new law. This has already itself succeeded the old law as a more perfect state succeeds a less perfect state; but no other state of the present life can be more perfect than that of the new law… Thus there cannot be in the present life a state more perfect than that of the new law… The state which is theirs must therefore endure until the end of the world. » Logically, this divine perpetuity excludes any total defection of the Church, for a prolonged vacancy without continuity would contradict the finality of salvation promised by Christ.
Next this truth follows logically from the first divine cause: God, having ordained the Church as the necessary instrument of salvation, cannot permit it to be corrupted without contradicting His promise, as explained by Saint Thomas Aquinas: « Faith rests on divine authority » (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 2, a. 10).
Indefectibility designates the property by which the Catholic Church, founded by Christ, remains immutable in its essential characteristics until the end of time, as affirmed by the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913): « Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not only that the Church will persist to the end of time, but also that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. »
This indefectibility applies to the Church as visible and hierarchical society, and not to its individual members, who can fail. Logically, indefectibility follows from the divine finality: the Church is the instrument of salvation, and its defection would contradict the divine promise.
The scriptural foundations are certain: Matthew 16:18: « Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. » This promise guarantees that the Church will never be vanquished by error or corruption. Matthew 28:20: « And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. » The continuous presence of Christ assures the permanence of the Church.
The apostolic Tradition, transmitted by the Fathers and the councils, confirms this doctrine. The Council Vatican I (1870), in Pastor Aeternus, links indefectibility to infallibility: « The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth. »
According to scholastic theology, indefectibility manifests itself in three principal aspects: in existence (in esse): the Church always subsists as visible and hierarchical society; in teaching (in docere): the Church cannot err in the faith; in action (in agere): the Church remains holy in its means of sanctification.
In time of prolonged crisis, like the current vacancy of the See since 1964, indefectibility assures continuity by the jurisdiction of suppletory (canon 209 of the Code of 1917, applying to acts necessary for the salvation of souls in case of common error or probable doubt, both in the external and internal forum, without ever supplying the supreme and universal power of the Roman pontiff) and the role of the faithful bishops, who maintain the ordinary universal magisterium and the sacraments. Historical examples of prolonged vacancy confirm this survival: the Great Western Vacancy (XIVth century) or the Arian crises, where the Church subsisted through bishops like Saint Athanasius.
Thus, indefectibility excludes any total failure and guarantees that the visible and hierarchical Church perseveres until the consummation of the ages, even in prolonged sedevacancy.
Section 6: Historical and Canonical Analysis of the Case of Paul VI
6.1. 1963: Election and U.P.A.: Paul VI was elected on 21 June 1963 and accepted peacefully by the entire Church, which constitutes an infallible dogmatic fact confirming his initial legitimacy.
6.2. 1964: Public and Manifest Heresy and Ontological Loss: On 21 November 1964, Paul VI promulgated the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium, which introduces a doctrine on episcopal collegiality directly contradicting the dogma defined by the Council Vatican I in Pastor Aeternus on the primacy and immediate jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff. This promulgation constitutes a public and manifest heresy. The loss of the papal office is then immediate and automatic (ipso facto), by the certain doctrinal principle attested by the bull of Paul IV and taught by the common theology: the manifest heretic ceases to be a member of the Church and cannot be its visible head.
6.3. Immediate Resistance: From the conciliar sessions, the Coetus Internationalis Patrum, group of faithful bishops, opposed resistance to the errors, thus breaking the peacefulness of the acceptance. It is a probable theological opinion that this resistance is an implicit declaration of vacancy.
6.4. 1964-1971: Period of Progressive Recognition: Between 1964 and 1971, resistance to the errors and dutiful disobedience in matters of faith became generalised among the faithful Catholics, without the entire Church committing a collective error. The human awareness of the vacancy was progressive. The first formal public declaration occurred in 1971 with the book of Father Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga, La Nueva Iglesia Montiniana, which concludes to the heresy of Paul VI and to the vacancy of the See.
6.5. Fidelity to the Bull and U.P.A.: The bull of Paul IV attests the certain doctrinal principle; the U.P.A. guarantees infallibly the initial legitimacy in 1963, but not post-heresy. The Church has not erred: the resistance proves the infallible non-adherence to the heretic.
Section 7: Supplementary Arguments
7.1. The Heretical Pope Cannot Be the Proximate Rule of Faith: Certain principle: the proximate rule of faith is the living magisterium of the Church; now a heretic cannot be rule of faith, for no one can be at the same time rule and deviation. Saint Thomas, II-II, q. 1, a. 10, teaches that faith requires an ultimate non-failing authority. Therefore, if a pope teaches publicly a doctrine contrary to the defined faith, he disqualifies himself ontologically as rule, before any declaration.
7.2. The Unity of Faith Is Constitutive of the Church: The Church is not a vague society; it is defined by one same faith, one same worship, one same government. If the visible head teaches a new faith incompatible, he formally breaks the constitutive unity. Therefore, he cannot be principle of unity, therefore he cannot be pope.
7.3. Impossibility of Two Contradictory Magisteria: Either Vatican I is true, or Vatican II is. If they are contradictory on collegiality, religious liberty, ecumenism, they cannot proceed from the same infallible magisterium. Therefore, the authority which promulgates Vatican II cannot be the same formal authority as that of Vatican I.
7.4. Visibility of the Church: If Paul VI remained pope after 1964, then the visible Church would have officially adopted doctrines previously condemned. This directly contradicts the indefectibility and visibility of the true Church. The only Catholic solution is the vacancy.
7.5. Impossibility of an Officially Non-Binding Magisterium: Paul VI promulgated Lumen Gentium as dogmatic constitution. Now a pope cannot officially promulgate, in the name of the universal Church, a doctrinal teaching which would be simply « pastoral » and not normative in matter of faith and ecclesiology. The official qualification of the act necessarily engages the magisterial authority. Therefore, if the teaching is erroneous, the authority which edicts it cannot be the formal Catholic authority.
7.6. Visibility of the Rule of Faith: The proximate rule of faith must be objectively identifiable by the simple faithful. If a pope could remain pope while publicly teaching doctrines contrary to anterior definitions, the proximate rule of faith would become intrinsically equivocal, which is incompatible with the very nature of theological faith, which requires an object proposed without ambiguity.
7.7. Formal Continuity of the Church: The Church is not defined by a simple material continuity of institutions or names, but by the formal continuity of faith, worship and government. An authority which conserves the exterior form while changing the doctrinal substance cannot be formally the Catholic Church, even if it conserves the appearances.
7.8. Against the Objection of the Absence of Declaration: It is false to pretend that a declaration of the Church would be necessary for the loss of the office to occur. The declaration is declarative and not constitutive. It ascertains a fact already accomplished in divine law. The absence of declaration therefore in no way prevents the real vacancy of the See.
Section 8: Refutation of Counter-Arguments
The Church has not erred in its global discernment: the immediate and growing resistance of the faithful Catholics to the promulgated errors proves precisely the infallible non-adherence to the heretic, thus preserving the divine indefectibility promised by Christ. This resistance, far from being a schism, constitutes a dutiful act of fidelity to the immutable apostolic doctrine, breaking the peacefulness of the acceptance without introducing collective error in the true Church, which subsists in the members attached to the integral faith. Indefectibility is fully preserved, for the visible and hierarchical Church continues by the jurisdiction of suppletory and the ordinary magisterium of the faithful bishops. Any objection founded on a pretended necessity of constitutive declaration ignores that the loss is already accomplished in divine law; the declaration is only ascertaining.
Conclusion
Paul VI was recognised legitimate pope in 1963 by the Universal Peaceful Acceptance, infallible sign of his initial validity according to the certain Catholic doctrine. However, by his public and obstinate promulgation of public and manifest heretical doctrines, notably in Lumen Gentium on 21 November 1964, he lost ipso facto the papal office according to the certain doctrinal principle attested by the bull of Paul IV and taught by the common theology (Saint Robert Bellarmine). This loss is ontological as regards the subject of jurisdiction and automatic in divine law: the manifest heretic ceases to be a member of the Church and cannot be its visible head. From that moment, the resistance of the faithful Catholics constituted a negative sign of non-adherence and an implicit indication of the vacancy of the See, breaking the peacefulness without collective error of the Church. The formal and public recognition of this vacancy was progressive, culminating with the declarations of Father Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga in 1971. Thus, the Church preserved its indefectibility, its visibility and its unity in the faithful attached to the immutable apostolic doctrine. This study fully confirms the eternal Catholic truth. If you wish for complements, I remain at your disposition.