Loss of the Papal Office for Heresy according to the Dictionary of Catholic Theology and others.
Table of contents
1. Preliminary notes and fundamental principle
1.1. According to the Fathers of the Church
1.2. The 135 authors
2. The doctrine in the Dictionary of Catholic Theology (D.T.C.): controversy on the exemption from heresy and the deposition of popes
2.1. Sources
2.2. Article of the D.T.C. “II. THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE PRIVILEGE OF EXEMPTION FROM HERESY”
2.2.1. Historical overview
2.2.2. Doctrine with Innocent III and the canonists
2.2.3. From the thirteenth century onwards
2.3. In the fifteenth century
2.4. Dictionary of Catholic Theology (D.T.C.), article “Deposition and degradation of clerics”
2.4.1. Principle of divine institution
2.4.2. Rule “Prima sedes a nemine judicetur”
2.4.3. Canon attributed to Pope Sylvester
2.4.4. Judge of the sovereign pontiff
2.4.5. Incompetence of emperors
2.4.6. General councils and apparent exceptions
3. Opinions of theologians, doctors and canonists of the Middle Ages and subsequent centuries
4. Testimonies of popes, councils and Fathers of the Church
5. Opinions of holy doctors and modern theologians
6. Reflections of the First Vatican Council and related declarations
7. Historical examples and application of the principle
8. Prophecies relating to the crisis of the Church and the vacancy of the Apostolic See
Principal sources
“Prima sedes a nemine judicetur nisi deprehendatur … a fide devius”
Demonstration of the existence and certain value of the principle
received by the entire Magisterium of the Middle Ages:
“The pope is judged by no one,
except if it is established that he deviates from the faith.”
1. Preliminary notes and fundamental principle
1.1. According to the Fathers of the Church (Saint Vincent of Lérins, Commonitorium), it is of faith and belongs to the deposit of the faith that every doctrine which has been believed and taught “always, everywhere and by all” in the Church — quod ubique, semper, ab omnibus — goes back to the Apostles, therefore to Our Lord Jesus Christ, therefore to God. In the texts of the sources cited below, the passages in red (when they exist in the original editions) mark precisely these doctrines quod ubique, semper, ab omnibus.
1.2. The 135 authors who have treated this subject — popes, councils, Fathers of the Church, Doctors of the Church, bishops and theologians — have not spoken of “formal or material heretic”. This distinction is impossible to apply to a pope, since there exists no human authority above the sovereign pontiff (except the humanity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is no longer on this earth but sits at the right hand of the Father and who is at the same time God). Indeed, according to canon law, to be a formal heretic it is necessary to be contumacious, persisting in heresy after admonitions made by the legitimate authority. The pope having no human authority above him, most authors consider that it is normal, fitting, highly useful and even necessary that the Church, and in particular the sound part of the bishops, warn the pope of his errors to save his soul and above all for the good of the entire Church; but this does not make him formally heretical in the sense of canon law. This does not prevent, however — according to the unanimity of the authors — that he can become heretical and be considered as having lost his office of pope. The texts themselves speak little or not at all of the formal/material distinction. See the exhaustive study made by Professor da Silveira in other chapters. I know this with certainty from the cited texts in the provided document.
2. The doctrine in the Dictionary of Catholic Theology (D.T.C.): controversy on the exemption from heresy and the deposition of popes
2.1. Sources:
Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique (D.T.C.), 1927, Volume 7, 2nd part, article “Infallibility of the pope”, page 1714 and following. This is a French-language work published in Paris by Letouzey et Ané.
2.2. “II. THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE PRIVILEGE OF EXEMPTION FROM HERESY, ATTRIBUTED BY SOME THEOLOGIANS TO THE POPE, CONSIDERED EVEN AS A PRIVATE PERSON.”
2.2.1. Historical overview. — “The pope is judged by no one, except if it is established that he deviates from the faith.” One encounters in the Decretum of Gratian this assertion attributed to Saint Boniface, archbishop of Mainz, and already cited under his name by Cardinal Deusdedit (died in 1087), as well as by Ivo of Chartres, Decretum, V, 23: the pope can fail in the faith: “Hujus (i. e. papae) culpas istic redarguere praesumit mortalium nullus, quia cunctos ipse judicaturus a nemine est judicandus, nisi deprehendatur a fide devius” (translation: no mortal presumes to rebuke the faults of the pope here, for he who is to judge everyone cannot be judged by anyone, except if he is found deviating from the faith). Decretum, part I, dist. XL, c. 6.
2.2.2. In what follows, this same doctrine is found even among the most convinced partisans of the pontifical privilege. Innocent III refers to it in one of his sermons: “In tantum fides mihi necessaria est ut, cum de ceteris peccatis solum Deum judicem habeam, propter solum peccatum quod in fide committitur, possem ab Ecclesia judicari” (translation: Faith is so necessary to me that, while for other sins I have God alone as judge, for the sole sin which is committed in faith, I could be judged by the Church), P.L., vol. CCXVII, col. 656. The great scholastic theologians have generally neglected to envisage this hypothesis; but the canonists of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries know and comment on the text of Gratian. All admit without difficulty that the pope can fall into heresy as into any other grave fault; they concern themselves only with researching why and under what conditions he can in this case be judged by the Church. For some it is the only exception to pontifical inviolability: “Non potest accusari nisi de haeresi”, it is in the Summa Lipsiensis (before 1190). Others equate to heresy schism, simony, misconduct, but the sin against the faith always remains the typical case which serves them to regulate the procedure. It must be a matter interesting the whole Church. Rufinus (around 1164-1170) summarizes thus the opinions of his time: “In ea (causa) quae totam Ecclesiam contingit, (papam) judicari potest, sed in ea quae unam personam vel plures (contingit), non”. The same author specifies that this rule must be understood of obstinate heresy: “Prima sedes non judicabitur a quoquam nisi in fidei articulis pertinaciter erraverit”. Which supposes, for John of Faenza, that the guilty pope has been “secundo et tertio commonitus”. There is no longer reason in this case to invoke primacy: for Huguccio (died in 1210) the pope is then “minor quolibet catholico”.
2.2.3. From the thirteenth century onwards, the Decretalists tend to hold to the letter of Gratian, which the Decretists willingly extended to similar cases. The former therefore reserve the judgment of the pope for the sole case of heresy: “Nisi in crimine haeresis”, says Bernard of Pavia (died in 1213); “Excipitur unum solum crimen super quo Papa accusari possit”, pronounces the famous Hostiensis (Henry of Segusio, died in 1271). But the eventuality of this latter case is always foreseen without the slightest hesitation. Restricted or enlarged, the thought of Gratian has dominated all canon law of the Middle Ages.
Fr. Schulte, Die Stellung der Concilien, Päpste und Bischöfe, Prague, 1871, pages 188-205 and Appendix 253-268, has drawn up, in support of “old Catholicism”, a very complete file of these texts for the most part unpublished or difficult to access.
2.3. In the fifteenth century the same doctrine still persists among numerous authors, who, like their predecessors, add that the pope is, in this case, immediately deprived of the pontifical dignity or deposed by the very fact (Torquemada, Summa de Ecclesia, book II, c. CXII, Rome, 1469). According to other theologians, the pope can, in this case, be judged by a council. Nicolas Tudeschi, or Panormitanus (died in 1445), Commentaria in Decretal., book I, tit. IV, c. 4, n. 3, Venice, 1617, vol. I, p. 108; Thomas Netter or Waldensis (died in 1430), Doctrinale antiquitatum fidei Ecclesiae catholicae, book II, a. 3, c. 80, Venice, 1571, vol. 1, p. 397.
E. Dublanchy.
2.4. Dictionary of Catholic Theology (D.T.C.), Third printing, 1924, article “Deposition and degradation of clerics”, Volume 4, 2nd part (or Volume 8).
VI. DEPOSITION OF POPES.
2.4.1. The principle according to which no one can be dismissed except by him who instituted him applies to popes as well as to other clerics. Now popes are elected by the college of cardinals, but they receive their authority only from God. It is in this sense that the canonists interpret book II, tit. 1, De judic., c. 13, which cites Saint Paul: “Potestas nostra non est ex homine, sed ex Deo”. Cf. Fagnan, Comment., ad c. 4, De elect., book vi, n. 32. Also Pope Innocent III proclaimed aloud his sovereign independence with regard to any human power: “The Roman pontiff, he says, has no other superior than God”, “post Deum alium superiorem non habet”. Serm., IV, in consecrat. pontif., P.L., vol. CCXVII, col. 670. And he concluded from this that no one had the power to depose him: “cum romanus pontifex non habeat alium dominum nisi Deum, quantumlibet evanescat, quis potest eum foras mittere ?” Serm., IV, in consecrat. pontif., ibid.
2.4.2. This rule was formulated early in the following terms: “Prima sedes a nemine judicetur”. The apocryphal acts of the council of Sinuessa in 303 already contain it. Pope Marcellinus, accused of having offered incense to the gods, is supposed to have recognized himself guilty; the bishops content themselves with pronouncing his deposition and they add: “Juste ore suo condemnatus est … Nemo enim unquam judicavit pontificem, nec praesul sacerdotem suum ; quoniam prima sedes non judicabitur a quoquam” (Hardouin, vol. I, col. 217 sq.). When later Pope Symmachus, pursued with unheard-of vehemence by the partisans of the antipope Lawrence, was brought before several synods convened by the king of the Ostrogoths, Theodoric the Great, no one dared condemn him, nor even judge him, because they feared to attack his supreme authority; it was considered that he could not be subjected to the judgment of his inferiors: “nec antedictae sedis antistitem minorum subjacuisse judicio”, Hardouin, vol. II, col. 967. On this affair, see the article “Uno antipapa e uno scisma al tempo del Theodorico”, in Civiltà cattolica, 4 April 1908, p. 68-78. Ennodius of Pavia (died in 521) writes on this subject that, if God has willed that “men terminate the trials of men”, he has reserved to himself the causes of the Holy See: “sed sedis istius presulis suo, sine quaestione, reservavit arbitrio” (Caus. IX, q. III, c. 14). The decisions of the council known under the name of synodus Palmaris, which acquitted Symmachus, were sent to the bishops of Gaul and these charged Saint Avitus of Vienne to reply in their name to the senators of Rome, Faustus and Symmachus. Avitus notes in his letter the principle “that a superior cannot be judged by inferiors”: “non facile datur intelligi qua lege ab inferioribus eminentior judicetur”, and praises the synod for having reserved the conduct of the pope to the judgment of God: “divino potius servavit examini”. “Moreover, if one touches the pope, it is not a bishop, but the entire episcopate that totters.” Epist. ad senat. urbis Romae, in Hardouin, vol. II, col. 982 sq. Thus it is not only in Italy, but in a much wider circle that the rule prevails: “prima sedes a nemine judicetur”.
2.4.3. When therefore a forger attributed to Pope Sylvester the famous canon: “Nemo judicabit primam sedem, quoniam omnes sedes a prima sede justitiam desiderant temperari”, Act., II, can. 20, Hardouin, vol. I, col. 294, he was only formulating the doctrine received in his time. Saint Boniface, the apostle of Germany, or whoever the author of the text may be, dist. XL, c. 6, specifies it further, when he declares that, except in the case of heresy, the pope could not be judged by anyone: “quia cunctos ipse judicaturus a nemine est judicandus, nisi deprehendatur a fide devius”. This last member of the phrase will be explained later. Pope Leo III, pursued by calumny, appeared in 800 before an ecclesiastical tribunal where Charlemagne sat. However, no one dared judge him: all the archbishops, bishops or abbots present recused themselves, saying: “Nos sedem apostolicam … judicare non audemus, nam ab ipsa nos omnes et vicario suo judicamur, ipsa autem a nemine judicatur, quemadmodum et antiquitus mos fuit” (Hardouin, vol. IV, col. 936). The Dictatus of Gregory VII, Hardouin, vol. VI, col. 1304; Gratian, in his decree, dist. XL, c. 6; caus. IX, q. iii, c. 14-16, repeat the same formula. And the principle was so universally recognized in the thirteenth century that King Philip of Swabia recalls it in a letter addressed to Pope Innocent III: “Ab homine non estis judicandus, sed judicium vestrum soli Deo reservatur”. Scriptum Philippi ad dominum papam, Raynaldi, Annal. eccles., year 1206, n. 16. Boniface VIII had only to consult tradition to write to Philip the Fair: “Si deviat spiritualis potestas minor, a suo superiore ; si vero suprema, a solo Deo, non ab homine poterit judicari”. Extravag. communes, I, viii, De maiorit. et obedient., c. 1.
2.4.4. Moreover what could be the judge of the sovereign pontiff? It is not the Sacred College. When the cardinals have named a pope, their role is finished; the one they have just elected, once consecrated, becomes their superior. And therefore they no longer have authority over him.
2.4.5. Would it be the emperor? The Christian emperors have sometimes intervened, indeed, in ecclesiastical affairs, even in papal affairs. The Roman council of 378 recalls the judgment rendered by Gratian [the emperor] in favor of Pope Damasus. But it was a matter of common law crimes where the State had to show force at the same time as to render justice. Epist. romani concilii ad Gratian et Valentinian. imperat., n. 11, cf. n. 8, in Schœnemann, op. cit., p. 360. Early on the principle of the distinction of the two powers was recognized in the Church. The interference of the State in ecclesiastical things then appeared to all an intolerable abuse. It is true that in the fourteenth century a counselor of Louis of Bavaria, Marsilius of Padua, claimed that the popes had no jurisdiction in the external forum except by virtue of an imperial concession and, consequently, were answerable to the emperors, who could if need be depose them. Cf. Defensor pacis, in Goldast, Monarchia romani imperii, vol. II, p. 154 sq. But this theory, born in the tumult of a conflict between the pope and the emperor, obtained no credit among the canonists. The written tradition was already contrary to it. In the famous canon attributed to Pope Sylvester: “Nemo judicabit primam sedem”, which is from the time of Theodoric, one read: “neque ab Augusto, neque ab omni clero, neque a regibus … judicabitur”. Hardouin, vol. I, col. 294. And Pope Nicholas I, recalling to Emperor Michael the principle of the independence of the two powers, had justly concluded that the Roman pontiff could not be deposed by the secular power: “a seculari potestate nec ligari posse nec solvi posse pontificem”, Hardouin, vol. V, col. 171 sq.; Gratian dist. XCVII, c. 6, 7. The Eighth Ecumenical Council held at Constantinople in 869 formulates solemnly the same doctrine, can. 21, Hardouin, vol. V, col. 909. Also when Emperor Otto, at the request of the council of Rome of 963, had Pope John XII deposed, it was recognized that this was an exceptional act and contrary to canon law; and one sought an excuse in the equally exceptional situation in which the Church found itself: “Inauditum vulnus inaudito est cauterio exurendum”, Hardouin, vol. VI, col. 632.
2.4.6. The incompetence of emperors to depose popes results, moreover, from their situation with regard to the papacy. However independent they might be in the domain of temporal things, one must not forget that they were consecrated by the Roman pontiffs and that, consequently, in certain respects they held from them or at least by their intermediary the supreme authority which they exercised over peoples. It is by reason of this fact that certain popes, Gregory VII for example, claimed the right to depose emperors. Cf. on this point Cenni, Monumenta dominationis pontificum, dist. I, n. 21-52; dist. VI, n. 13-41; Kober, op. cit., p. 568-572. On their side, it is true, the emperors claimed that the nomination of popes could not be valid if they did not ratify it [this right was granted to them by previous popes]. But this ratification evidently did not equate to a consecration, and did not confer any right over the one who was its object. Never was an emperor considered as the superior of the Roman pontiff. Never, consequently, could he attribute to himself the right to depose him. The attempts of Henry IV against Gregory VII and of Louis of Bavaria against John XXII necessarily failed, because they were contrary to law and to tradition.
2.4.7. But if the enterprises of emperors on the papacy were only a temporary accident in the history of the Church, could not the general councils which incontestably possess supreme authority in the spiritual domain depose a pope who would betray his duty? In fact, the council of Constance deposed, at the time of the great Western schism, John XXIII and Benedict XIII and it obtained the resignation of Gregory XII. Hardouin, vol. VIII, col. 376, 386. This event, which brought peace back to the bosom of Christendom, was greeted with cries of universal joy. Is this not an indication and a proof that the deposition of popes constitutes in certain circumstances a right, even a duty of general councils?
The acts of the council of Constance need to be explained, but have in no way modified the constitution of the Church. And it is wrongly that the Fathers of the council claimed to possess supremacy over the pope. Sess. IV and V, Hardouin, vol. VIII, col. 252, 258. Cf., on this point, Bellarmine De concil. et Eccles., II, 19; Bossuet, Defensio declarationis cleri gallicani, v, 2 sq.; Turmel, Histoire de la théologie positive, vol. II, p. 365, 373-378.
The primacy of the pope is of divine institution, as is the episcopate. Whether the pope and the bishops are united or whether they are separated, their condition remains the same. Doubtless, the pope is not an absolute monarch and in a council the bishops collaborate with him. He is the head of the Church, and they are the body. But one does not conceive that the body should perform an act of authority without the head; one does not conceive above all that the body should dominate the head. Moreover the ecumenical council does not exist without the participation of the pope. If one supposes for a moment that the pope is on one side, the bishops on the other, the Church would have ceased to exist. This is therefore a chimerical hypothesis. On the other hand, it is admitted by everyone that an isolated bishop could not depose a pope. This act of supremacy exceeds his competence. It is true, one has seen a Dioscorus of Alexandria pronounce excommunication against Pope Saint Leo the Great, and Photius launch a sentence of deposition against Nicholas I. But such acts were immediately declared null by the council of Chalcedon and by that of Constantinople. On all this, see Libellus Theodori diaconi contra Dioscorum, Hardouin, vol. II, col. 324; Anastasius the Librarian, Hardouin, vol. V, col. 752; council of Chalcedon, Epist. ad Leon. papam, Hardouin, vol. III, col. 656; council of Constantinople of 869, Hardouin, vol. V, col. 917. What one bishop cannot do, two bishops nor ten bishops could do no more. The addition of ten, of twenty, of a hundred incompetences could not constitute a competence. An ecumenical council, deprived of papal sanction, has no more authority than a particular council. If therefore one recognizes that a particular council does not have the power to depose the sovereign pontiff, one must conclude that a universal council, deprived of its head, cannot depose him either. The deposition pronounced by the council of Basel against Eugene IV, a certainly legitimate pope, was radically null. If a pope commits an abuse of power which, for a simple bishop, would entail deposition, at most one can resist him to his face, as Saint Paul did towards Saint Peter. But as Yves de Chartres remarks, if he resisted him, he did not depose him: “In faciem restitit, non tamen eum abjecit”. Epist., CCXXXIII, ad Henric. abbat., P.L., vol. CLXII, col. 236. Against a pope who persists in evil there is no other resource than “to await the time of the harvest” and to refer to the judgment of God. Epist., CCXXVI, ad Joann. episcop. Lugdun., ibid., col. 240.
2.4.8. The sovereign pontiff is therefore above all terrestrial jurisdiction. This is so true that, even if he wished it, he could not submit to a human tribunal. It is alleged, it is true, that Pope Damasus referred himself to the Roman synod of 378: “se dedit ipse judiciis sacerdotum”, council of Rome, Epist. ad Gratian. et Valentinian. imperat., n. 10, in Schœnemann, p. 360; that Symmachus did the same in 501, Synodus roman. Palmaris, Hardouin, vol. II, col. 967, and that Leo III convened a synod in Rome in 800 to justify himself from the crimes imputed to him. Vita Leonis, in Hardouin, vol. IV, col. 936. This would moreover be in conformity with Roman law which lays down as a principle that a superior has the right to submit to the jurisdiction of an inferior. Digest., De jurisdict. omnium judic., II, 1, 14. But there is reason to note that neither Damasus, nor Symmachus, nor Leo III took, properly speaking, the Roman councils as judges; they simply took them as witnesses of their innocence: “affectu purgationis suae culmen humilians”, says the synod where Symmachus appeared. Hardouin, vol. II, col. 969. Cf. for Damasus and Leo III, loc. cit. Doubtless, it is of common law that a private person can renounce his privilege: “Quilibet potest renuntiare juri suo atque favori privato”, Digest., loc. cit., law 14. But it is only when it is a matter of a personal favor. The sovereign pontiff is not in this case. The immunity which he enjoys has been granted to him in the general interest. It is not in his power to divest himself of it. Consequently, in any state of the case, the maxim: “prima sedes a nemine judicetur”, remains true.
2.4.9. However to this rule two exceptions are commonly admitted. One recalls that the canon attributed to Saint Boniface and cited by Gratian, dist. XL, c. 6, according to which “the pope can judge everyone and cannot be judged by anyone”, contains this reservation: “nisi deprehendatur … a fide devius”.
1. Heresy constitutes therefore a fault for which a pope can be deposed by the general council. The Roman council of 503 makes the same remark with regard to [pope] Symmachus: “nisi a recta fide exorbitaverit” (“except if he has deviated from the right faith”), Hardouin, vol. II, col. 984.
This doctrine was received and confirmed by the entire Middle Ages. One finds its expression in the third allocution of Pope Adrian II to the Fourth Council of Constantinople. Hardouin, vol. V, col. 866. The pseudo-Isidore attributes it to Pope Eusebius. Epist., II, ad episcop. Alexandrin., c. XI; Hinschius, op. cit., p. 237. Gratian inserts it in his Decree, caus. II, q. vii, c. 13. Ivo of Chartres recalls it to John, archbishop of Lyon. Finally Pope Innocent III solemnly recognizes that, if for his other sins he has God alone as judge, “in the matter of heresy he can be judged by the Church”: “propter solum peccatum quod in fide committitur possem ab Ecclesia judicari”. Serm., II, in consecrat. pontif., P.L., vol. CCXVII, col. 656. This principle is therefore beyond doubt. Cf. on this point, Bellarmine, De concil. et Ecclesia; Cano, De locis theologicis, VI, 8; Turmel, Histoire de la théologie positive, from the council of Trent to the council of the Vatican, p. 366-368.
2. The rule which applies to heretical popes applies equally to schismatics, and this is the second exception which we wish to point out. Towards the middle of the eleventh century, three popes, Benedict IX, Sylvester III and Gregory VI, claimed the right to the tiara. A council met at Sutri in 1046 to examine the validity of their titles. The first two were deposed as elected by simony or nepotism, and Gregory VI consented to give his resignation. Clement II was elected pope in their place and consecrated at Saint Peter’s in Rome. At the death of Stephen X, Benedict X had himself elected by force; but towards the end of 1058 Hildebrand succeeded in grouping the votes of the majority of the Sacred College on the bishop of Florence who took the name of Nicholas II. The council which met the following year at Sutri pronounced the forfeiture of Benedict X, and Nicholas made without opposition his solemn entry into Rome. The deposition of John XXIII and of Benedict XIII at the council of Constance is an act of the same kind. The council proceeded by virtue of its authority, because it was a matter of schismatic popes. There was no need, to justify its conduct, to invoke a pretended superiority of the council over the sovereign pontiff.
But when we say that popes can be exceptionally deposed for cause of heresy or schism, we understand the word “deposition” in a broad sense. Properly speaking, neither in the one case nor in the other is the pope “deposed” by the council. A pope who would fall into heresy and who would persist in it would cease by that very fact to be a member of the Church and consequently to be pope; he would depose himself. Thus does Innocent III understand it: “Potest (pontifex) ab hominibus judicari vel potius judicatus ostendi, si videlicet evanescat in haeresim, quoniam qui non credit iam judicatus est” [Jn 3,18]. Serm., IV, in consecr. pontif., P.L., vol. CCXVII, col. 670. Cf. Fagnan, Comment., ad c. 4, De elect., I, vi, n. 70. (“… for he who does not believe is already condemned”, says Jesus in the Gospel of Saint John 3,18). “Non potest exui iam nudatus”, one reads again. Sexti decret., book II, tit. v, De restit. spoliat., c. 1. Cf. Gratian, caus. XXIV, q. 1, c. 1. A judgment which the general council would pronounce against a schismatic pope is no more a deposition. In fact, the schismatic popes were simply treated as usurpers and dispossessed of a see which they did not legitimately possess. Cf. the decree against simoniacs of the council of Rome of 1039, Hardouin, vol. VI, col. 1064; Gratian, dist. LXXIX, c. 9; Gregory XV, const. Aeterni Patris, of 1621, sect. XIX, Bullarium romanum, vol. III, p. 446. The councils which struck them only examined their titles to the tiara. It is not the popes whom they judged, but the election and the act of the electors: “Eo casu, non pontifex maximus, sed actum potius eligentium judicatur”, says Fagnan, loc. cit., n. 65. In reality, no one could depose a heretical or schismatic pope, since the first has ceased to be pope and the second has never been one. Consequently, the exceptions to the rule which written law seems to indicate are only apparent. The principle “prima sedes a nemine judicetur” is absolute, it suffers no exception: a pope, whatever his crimes may be, has, in the external forum, no other judge than God.
Sources (from the D.T.C.): Ballerini, De vi ac ratione primatus romanorum pontificum, in Migne, Theologiae cursus completus, vol. III; Barbosa, Collectanea doctorum in V lib. Decretalium, 3 in-fol., Lyon, 1656; Bellarmine, De Romano pontifice; De conciliis et Ecclesia; Binterim, Denkwürdigkeiten der christkatholischen Kirche, 7 in-8°, Mainz, 1825-1832; Bullarium magnum Romanum, 19 in-fol., Luxembourg, 1727 sq.; Bullarium Benedicti XIV, 4 in-fol., Rome, 1754-1758; Van Espen, Jus ecclesiasticum universum, 4 in-fol., Louvain (Paris), 1641; Fagnan, Commentarius in V lib. Decretalium, 3 in-fol., Rome, 1661; Ferraris, Prompta bibliotheca canonica, 8 in-4°, Rome, 1885 sq.; Hardouin, Conciliorum collectio regia maxima, 12 in-fol., 1715; Hefele, Histoire des conciles, trans. Leclercq, 1907-1908; Hinschius, System des katholischen Kirchenrechts, 6 in-8°, Berlin, 1879-1897; Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianae, in-8°, Leipzig, 1863; Kober, Die Suspension der Kirchendiener, in-8°, Tübingen, 1862; Die Deposition und Degradation nach den Grundsätzen des kirchlichen Rechts, in-8°, Tübingen, 1867 (classic work); Loening, Geschichte des deutschen Kirchenrechts, 2 in-8°, Strasbourg, 1878; Marca, De concordia sacerdotii et imperii, in-4°, Paris, 1641; Massuet, Dissertationes praeviae in Irenaei libros, P.G., vol. VII, col. 281 sq.; du Perron, “Réplique à la réponse du sérénissime roy de la Grande-Bretagne”, Paris, 1620; Philipps, Kirchenrecht, 7 in-8°, Regensburg, 1845-1872; Real-Encyklopädie der christlichen Alterthümer, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1882, art. Deposition by Kober; Reiffenstuel, Jus canonicum universum, 5 in-fol., Ingolstadt, 1759; Santi, Praelectiones juris canonici juxta ordinem Decretalium, 5 in-8°, Regensburg, 1892; Schmalgrueber, Jus canonicum universum, Rome, 1844; Schœnemann, Pontificum romanorum epistolae genuinae; Schulte, Das Kirchenrecht, 2 in-8°, Stuttgart, 1860; Thomassin, Vetus et nova disciplina circa beneficia et beneficiarios, 3 in-fol., Venice, 1752; Turmel, Histoire de la théologie positive, 2 in-8°, Paris, 1904-1906; Histoire du dogme de la papauté, from the origins to the end of the fourth century, in-12, Paris, 1908; Wasserschleben, Die Bussordnungen der abendländischen Kirche, in-8°, Halle, 1851; Wernz, Jus Decretalium ad usum praelectionum in scholis textus canonici sive juris Decretalium, 3 in-8°, Rome, 1897-1908.
E. Vacandard
3. Opinions of theologians, doctors and canonists of the Middle Ages and subsequent centuries
The cardinal Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, will moreover write on this question that a “pope who is a manifest heretic ceases automatically to be the pope and the head, in the same way that he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. This is why he can be judged and punished by the Church” for “This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics lose immediately all jurisdiction.” De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chapter 30. This is from the 1581-1593 edition, Rome.
The decretist Rufinus (around 1164-1170) summarizes thus the opinions of his time: “In ea (causa) quae totam Ecclesiam contingit, (papam) judicari potest, sed in ea quae unam personam vel plures (contingit), non”. “In affairs which touch the whole Church, the pope can be judged, not for affairs which concern one or several persons”. The same author specifies that this rule must be understood of obstinate heresy: “Prima sedes non judicabitur a quoquam nisi in fidei articulis pertinaciter erraverit”. Which supposes, for John of Faenza, that the guilty pope has been “secundo et tertio commonitus” (“admonished twice or three times”). There is no longer reason in this case to invoke primacy: for Huguccio (died in 1210) the pope is then “minor quolibet catholico” (“less than any other Catholic”).
Mgr Saint Antoninus, archbishop of Florence (1389-1459): “In the case where the pope would become heretical, he would find himself, by this sole fact and without other condemnation, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it has been cut. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy would therefore cease by the very fact to be head of the Church. He could not be heretical and remain pope, for, being outside the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church.” (Summa Theologica. Cited in the Acts of Vatican I).
The cardinal Cajetan (Thomas de Vio, died in 1534) affirmed rightly that “As soon as the bishop of Rome ceases to be faithful, he also ceases to be the successor of Peter.” De Divina institutione pontificatus totius Ecclesiae in persona Petri apostoli libellus (1521). Therefore a pope can cease to be faithful and therefore cease to be pope.
4. Testimonies of popes, councils and Fathers of the Church
Paul IV — Cum ex Apostolatus Officio (15 February 1559):
“§ 1. We consider the present situation grave and dangerous enough for the Roman Pontiff, Vicar of God and of Our Lord Jesus Christ on earth, vested with the fullness of power over nations and kingdoms, judge of all men and unable to be judged by anyone in this world, to be able however to be contradicted if he deviates from the Catholic Faith.”
and: “the Roman Pontiff could be rejected as false, if he were caught deviating in the faith.”
5. Opinions of holy doctors and modern theologians
Saint Alphonsus Liguori (died in 1787) concerning Pope Symmachus developed his reflection by saying that “the Fathers of the Council of Rome, held under Pope Symmachus, proclaimed that the Pope is the supreme Pastor, who, outside the case of heresy, is not subject to the judgment of anyone” … for “in this latter case, the Pope would not be deprived of the pontificate by the Council, as if it were superior to him, but that he would be stripped directly by Jesus Christ, because he would then become a completely unfit subject and fallen from his charge.” Complete Works of S. Alphonsus Liguori, Volume II, Part III, Chapter IX, p. 165 and 308. This is from the edition of the nineteenth century, French translation.
He considered therefore that if “the manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed” — that is to say “before any excommunication or judicial sentence” — then “A pope who is a manifest heretic ceases automatically to be the pope and the head, in the same way that he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. This is why he can be judged and punished by the Church.” (cross-reference with Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chapter 30).
Saint Alphonsus Liguori summarized the thing perfectly by explaining that “God has granted to the Church, that is to say to the college of cardinals, or to the council in the case of a doubtful or heretical pope, the power to elect the sovereign pontiff, but in no way the pontifical power.” Complete Works of S. Alphonsus Liguori, Volume II, Part III, Chapter IX, p. 220.
6. Reflections of the First Vatican Council and related declarations
At the First Vatican Council in 1870, there was a question and answer during the council, heard and known by the pope and all the bishops, and it was not denied that it was impossible for a pope to become heretical, but this has never existed until now. But if this happened, “the Council of bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes heretical, he is neither head nor even member of the Church”. Therefore the possibility was not refused!
The Very Reverend Jean-Baptiste Purcell, D.D., Archbishop of Cincinnati, Ohio (1800-1883) pronounced an allocution at the same First Vatican Council, on the infallibility of the Pope as defined at the Council; he explained as follows. The question was also raised by a cardinal: “What to do with the Pope if he becomes heretical?”
It was answered “that such a case has never occurred; the Council of bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes heretical, he is neither head nor even member of the Church. The Church would not be, for an instant, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine which she knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God himself. If the Pope, for example, said that belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, ‘I believe in Christ’, etc. The supposition is harmful to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the vast reflection given to every possibility. If he denies every dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than you or I; and thus, in this respect, the dogma of infallibility constitutes nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy.” (The Life and Work of Pope Leo XIII by the Reverend James J. McGovern, D.D., p. 241). This is from the cited English work.
And during this same First Vatican Council, Mgr Zinelli, relator of the conciliar commission on the faith, evoked in these terms the possibility of a heretical pope: “If God permits so great an evil (namely, a heretical pope) the means to remedy this situation will not be lacking” (Mansi 52, 1109).
7. Historical examples and application of the principle
In fact, this declaration of the vacancy of the See of Saint Peter has occurred in the history of the Church:
His Excellency Mgr Ngo Dinh-Thuc has legitimized his actions of episcopal consecrations without the authorization of Rome by a declaration dated Munich 25 February 1982, confirming that the Apostolic See is currently vacant and that it belongs to him, “as bishop, to ensure the continuity of the Roman Catholic Church, for the salvation of souls”.
The Declaration
Consequently, we now have Catholic bishops.
Deo gratias.
8. Prophecies relating to the crisis of the Church and the vacancy of the Apostolic See
Prophecies of Our Lady of La Salette (19th century)
“(…) The precursor of the antichrist will make his appearance and will want to be seen as the new God. The seasons will be changed, the atmosphere also; water and fire will give the globe of the earth convulsive movements and horrible earthquakes, which will make mountains and cities swallowed up. The stars and the moon will no longer have the strength to shine. Rome will lose the faith and will become the seat of the antichrist. The demons of the air with the antichrist will perform great prodigies on earth and in the air, and men will pervert themselves more and more. God will take care of His faithful servants and men of good will; the Gospel will be preached everywhere, all peoples and all nations will have knowledge of the truth (…)”.
Prophecies of Mother Marie-Agnès-Claire Steiner (19th century)
Mother Marie-Agnès-Claire Steiner was born in the German Tyrol, in 1813. […] Favored with the gift of prophecy to an eminent degree, her revelations explain the divine plan concerning guilty men. […] In 1843 Mother Steiner had seen a crowd of demons come out of hell and come upon the earth to ruin the faith.
In 1845 the Blessed Virgin said to Mother Steiner:
“If grace is not obtained by prayers, the time will come when one will see the sword and death, and Rome will be without a pastor”.
This is what we observe currently, alas.
Prophecy of Rodolfo Gilthier (17th century)
This prophecy, written in August 1675, appeared in the Revue des Deux Mondes of 15 September 1855. Here is the translation of the Latin text:
“Before the middle of the nineteenth century, there will be seditions on all sides in Europe; Republics will arise; There will be kings, great men and priests put to death, and religious will abandon their convents. Famines, plagues and earthquakes will devastate numerous cities. Rome will lose the scepter by the persecution of false philosophers. The Pope will become captive of his subjects. The Church of God will be subjected to tribute and stripped of her temporal goods;
After a little time, there will no longer be a Pope;
A prince of the North will traverse Europe with a great army. He will overthrow the republics and exterminate the rebels. His sword held by God, will defend the Church of Christ, will exalt the orthodox faith and will subject the empire of Mahomet. A new pastor, he of the faith, called from the shore by a heavenly sign, will come in simplicity of heart and the knowledge of Christ. And peace will be restored to the world.”
Augustinian Predictions (19th century publication)
They are so named because they are extracted from the Library of Saint Augustine, in Rome. […]
Towards the middle of the nineteenth century seditions will break out on all sides in Europe, principally in the kingdom of France, in Switzerland and in Italy.
Republics will arise; kings will disappear; ecclesiastical personages and religious will leave their dwellings.
Famine, plague and earthquakes will devastate several cities.
Rome will lose the scepter by the obsession of pseudo-philosophers.
The Pope will be taken into captivity by his own, and the Church of God will undergo the revolutionary yoke; moreover she will be despoiled in her temporal goods.
After a little time, the Pope will be extinguished.
A prince of the North will traverse all Europe with a great army; he will overthrow the republics and exterminate the rebels; his sword, moved by God, will defend energetically the Church of Christ. This sovereign will fight for the orthodox faith and will conquer the Mahometan empire. (editor’s note: The coming of the Great King)
A new pastor of the Church will come from a shore, according to a heavenly sign; he will teach the people with simplicity of heart and according to the doctrine of Christ, and peace will be restored to the century. (editor’s note: The coming of the great pope)
(source: forumarchedemarie)
Werdinian Prophecy
(Title derived from the name of the author of this prophecy the Abbé Werdini, born at the beginning of the thirteenth century, at Otranto, Italy, where he died towards the calends of November in 1279. […])
I, abbot Werdini of Otranto, warned by my guardian Angel of the near time of my death, have written on parchment the events which have been revealed to me and which will be accomplished at the opening of the sixth seal. […] This good Pastor guarded by angels, will repair many things. By his vigilance and solicitude altars will be raised, and destroyed churches will be restored. Then a pleasant warrior will come from a foreign country to contemplate the glory of this Pastor; and the latter will install him in a marvelous way on the throne become vacant; he will crown him with the diadem. And will ask his help in his own government. Then, after a small number of years, this star will be extinguished, and mourning will be great (…).
Principal sources (at the bottom of the page / references)
– Dictionary of Catholic Theology (D.T.C.), articles cited (Infallibility of the pope and Deposition and degradation of clerics).
– Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, ch. 30.
– Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Complete Works, Volume II.
– Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio of Paul IV (1559).
– Acts of the First Vatican Council (Mansi, declarations of Purcell and Zinelli).
– Hardouin, Conciliorum collectio; Gratian, Decretum; and canonical works cited in the D.T.C.
– Declaration of Mgr Ngo Dinh-Thuc (Munich, 25 February 1982).
– Prophecies: La Salette, Mother Steiner, Gilthier, Augustinian, Werdinian (historical editions of the nineteenth century).