Public Heresy and Loss of the Pontifical Office

The thesis of Bellarmine, its foundations, its conditions and its reception among theologians and canonists.

The D.T.C. ( Dictionnaire de théologie catholique ) and the testimonies of theological tradition

 

 

Table of contents

 

1 Object and articulation of the demonstration

1.1 The thesis and the distinct questions

1.2 Order of the testimonies and degree of their authority

1.3 Common doctrine and universality of Tradition

2 The two studies of the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique

2.1 Dublanchy and the controversy on a personal exemption from all heresy

2.1.1 Deusdedit, Ivo of Chartres and Gratian

2.1.2 Innocent III and the decretists of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries

2.1.3 Bernard of Pavia and Hostiensis

2.1.4 Thomas Netter, Nicholas Tudeschi and Torquemada in the fifteenth century

2.2 Vacandard and the deposition of popes

2.2.1 Divine origin of pontifical power

2.2.2 Symmachus, Ennodius and Avitus on the first See

2.2.3 Sylvester, Leo III, Gregory VII and Boniface VIII

2.2.4 The cardinals and their electoral power

2.2.5 Damasus, Nicholas I and imperial power

2.2.6 Constance, Basel and the limit of conciliar power

2.2.7 Personal justification and superior jurisdiction

2.2.8 Adrian II, Innocent III and the case of heresy

2.2.9 Sutri, Constance and the claimants to the pontificate

2.2.10 Deposition understood as the finding of a prior loss

2.3 What the two studies contribute together

3 Scriptural foundations and patristic testimonies

3.1 Saint Paul and separation from the obstinate heretic

3.2 Saint John and the judgment already incurred

3.3 Saint Cyprian and the other Fathers invoked by Bellarmine

3.4 Saint Vincent of Lérins and fidelity to the received faith

3.5 The Liber Diurnus and the attribution to Saint Agatho

4 Medieval authors and the passage to modern controversies

4.1 Medieval canonists and obstinate heresy

4.2 Thomas Netter and Nicholas Tudeschi

4.3 Saint Antoninus of Florence

4.4 Juan de Torquemada

4.5 Girolamo Savonarola and Alexander VI

4.6 Cajetan and the distinction between the person and the pontificate

5 Popes and theologians of the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries

5.1 Paul IV and the bull Cum ex apostolatus officio

5.2 Saint Robert Bellarmine and loss by the law itself

5.3 Saint Francis de Sales

5.4 Prosper Fagnani and the two functions of judgment

5.5 Saint Alphonsus de Liguori

6 Vatican I and the testimonies of the nineteenth century

6.1 Pastor aeternus and the conservation of the deposit of faith

6.2 The report of Federico Zinelli

6.3 The testimony of John Baptist Purcell transmitted by McGovern

6.4 Josef Fessler in 1875

6.5 Henry Ignatius Dudley Ryder

6.6 The scope of historical assertions about pontifical errors

7 The Code of 1917 and the theologians and canonists of the twentieth century

7.1 Louis Billot in the 1909 edition

7.2 Joseph Wilhelm in the Catholic Encyclopedia in 1910

7.3 Benedict XV and canon 188 number 4

7.4 Caesar Badii in 1921

7.5 Dominic Prümmer in 1927

7.6 Vermeersch and Creusen in the 1929 edition

7.7 The commentary of H. A. Ayrinhac

7.8 Wernz and Vidal in 1943

7.9 Udalricus Beste in 1946

7.10 Matthaeus Conte a Coronata in the third edition

7.11 Eduardus Regatillo in 1956

7.12 Serapius Iragui in 1959

7.13 Anthony Cekada and Fernand Claeys Bouuaert

8 Logical synthesis of the arguments and conditions of the loss of office

8.1 The argument of the head and the body

8.2 Loss by divine right and the ecclesiastical declaration

8.3 Formal heresy, pertinacity and warnings

8.4 Public, manifest and notorious

8.5 Invalid election and subsequent loss of the pontificate

8.6 Common doctrine and degree of certainty

9 Prophetic texts relating to the crisis of the Church

9.1 The text attributed to Ridolpho Gelthier published by Lemoinne in 1855

9.2 The so-called Augustinian predictions published in 1870

9.3 The prophecy attributed to Werdini in the collection of 1870

9.4 Melanie Calvat and the secret published in 1879

9.5 Marie Agnès Claire Steiner and the publications of 1881 and 1883

10 Sedevacantist application and conclusion

10.1 The general principle and the case of Paul VI

10.2 The declaration of Bishop Ngô Đình Thục

10.3 Doctrinal conclusion

11 List of sources

11.1 Studies of the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique and historical sources

11.2 Other doctrinal and canonical texts

11.3 Bibliography transmitted from Vacandard’s article

 

 

1 Object and articulation of the demonstration

 

1.1 The thesis and the distinct questions

 

The thesis defended is that of the loss of the pontifical office by manifest heresy: he who ceases to belong to the Church cannot remain its visible head. The central argument is set forth by Saint Robert Bellarmine and taken up, according to the texts gathered here, by several doctors, theologians and canonists. Three questions must nevertheless be distinguished: the possibility that a pope may fall personally into heresy; the conditions under which this heresy entails the loss of his office; the role of a possible intervention of the Church in the finding of this loss.

 

The attribution to each author must keep the limits of the testimony cited: some affirm the loss by the law itself, some reason under a hypothesis they judge improbable, others reserve a function for a deposition or a declaration. A convergence on the incompatibility between heresy and the papacy does not therefore necessarily mean agreement on all the modalities of the forfeiture.

 

1.2 Order of the testimonies and degree of their authority

 

The two studies of the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique are gathered in chapter 2. They give the historical and juridical framework. The following chapters order the other testimonies according to the periods to which the authors or the texts belong: scriptural and patristic foundations, the Middle Ages, theologians of later centuries, Vatican I, then contemporary manuals of the Code of 1917. The arguments are then brought together in a logical synthesis. The prophetic texts and the sedevacantist application are kept in distinct chapters.

 

A bibliographical certainty about a passage is equivalent neither to a dogmatic definition of its content nor to proof of its application to a determined person.

 

1.3 Common doctrine and universality of Tradition

 

Saint Vincent of Lérins provides the traditional criterion expressed by the words “quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est”, that is, “what has been believed everywhere, always and by all”. Reference: Commonitorium, chapter 2, edition R. S. Moxon, Cambridge, 1915, pp. 10–11. This criterion requires that the universality of the teaching to which it is applied be actually established; the mere number of citations does not suffice for that demonstration.

 

Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira indicates that he examined 136 ancient and modern authors and affirms that Bouix is the only one to defend the third opinion of his classification, that of the maintenance of the pontificate even in the hypothesis of a notorious heresy. The other 135 therefore correspond, by subtraction, to the rest of this set; this numbering does not imply that they all teach an identical procedure of forfeiture. Considerações sobre o “Ordo Missae” de Paulo VI, 1970, part devoted to the hypothesis of a heretical pope, pp. 18 and 20, note 5. The citation of Prümmer reproduced further on expressly uses the notion of formal heresy and sets forth divergences among authors; it forbids presenting all the testimonies as indifferent to that distinction.

 

2 The two studies of the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique

 

2.1 Dublanchy and the controversy on a personal exemption from all heresy

 

Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, vol. 7, second part, Paris, Letouzey et Ané, 1923, É. Dublanchy, article “Infaillibilité du pape”, section 2, cols. 1714–1715.

 

The section studied concerns the privilege of exemption from heresy attributed by some theologians to the pope considered even as a private person. The exposition first shows the historical reception of the hypothesis; this reception must be distinguished from the particular solution given to the loss of office.

 

2.1.1 Deusdedit, Ivo of Chartres and Gratian

 

Historical survey. — “The pope is judged by no one, except if it is established that he deviates from the faith.” One finds in Gratian’s Decretum this assertion attributed to Saint Boniface, archbishop of Mainz, and already cited under his name by Cardinal Deusdedit (author of a canonical collection completed in 1087), as well as by Ivo of Chartres, Decretum, 5, 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 attributes to himself the judging of the pope’s faults, for he who is to judge all men is to be judged by no one, unless he is found deviant from the faith). Decretum, part 1, dist. 40, c. 6, Si papa; ed. Friedberg, vol. 1, col. 146. Ivo of Chartres, Decretum, 5, 23; É. Dublanchy, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, vol. 7/2, col. 1714.

 

2.1.2 Innocent III and the decretists of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries

 

Thereafter 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 enim 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, whereas for other sins I have God alone as judge, for the sole sin committed against the faith I could be judged by the Church”), Sermo 2 in consecratione pontificis maximi, Patrologia Latina, vol. 217, col. 656. The great scholastic theologians generally neglected to consider this hypothesis; but the canonists of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries know and comment on Gratian’s text. All admit without difficulty that the pope can fall into heresy as into any other grave fault; they concern themselves only with seeking why and under what conditions he can in that case be judged by the Church. For some it is the only exception to pontifical inviolability: “Non potest accusari nisi de haeresi” (“He cannot be accused except of heresy”), one reads in the Summa Lipsiensis (before 1190). Others equate with heresy schism, simony, misconduct, but the sin against the faith remains always the typical case that serves them to regulate the procedure. It must be a matter concerning the whole Church. The Summa Parisiensis thus summarizes the opinions of its time: “In ea causa, quae totam ecclesiam tangit, judicari potest papa ab ecclesia, sed in ea, quae unam personam contingit vel plures, non” (“In a cause that concerns the whole Church, the pope can be judged by the Church; but not in one that concerns one person or several”). Rufinus (about 1164–1170) specifies that this rule must be understood of obstinate heresy: “Prima sedes non judicabitur a quoquam”, with this reservation: “nisi in fidei articulis pertinaciter erraverit” (“The first see will be judged by no one, unless he has obstinately erred in the articles of faith”). Which presupposes, for John of Faenza, that the guilty pope has been “secundo et tertio commonitus” (“warned a second and a third time”). There is then no longer ground to invoke the primacy: for Huguccio (died 1210), the pope is then “minor quolibet catholico” (“inferior to any Catholic”). Schulte, Die Stellung der Concilien, Päpste und Bischöfe, appendix, no. 301 h, p. 255; no. 304 b 2, 306 and 307 a, p. 258; no. 308, p. 261. Rufinus, Die Summa decretorum des Magister Rufinus, ed. Heinrich Singer, Paderborn, 1902, p. 46.

 

2.1.3 Bernard of Pavia and Hostiensis

 

From the thirteenth century onward, the decretalists tend to keep 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” (“Except for the crime of heresy”), says Bernard of Pavia (died 1213); “Excipitur unum solum crimen, super quo Papa accusari potest” (“One crime alone is excepted, for which the pope can be accused”), pronounces the celebrated Hostiensis (Henry of Segusio, died 1271). But the eventuality of this last case is always provided for without the least hesitation. Restricted or enlarged, Gratian’s thought dominated the whole of medieval canon law. Schulte, op. cit., appendix, no. 309, p. 264, and no. 315, p. 268; É. Dublanchy, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, vol. 7/2, cols. 1714–1715.

 

Johann Friedrich von Schulte, Die Stellung der Concilien, Päpste und Bischöfe vom historischen und canonistischen Standpunkte und die päpstliche Constitution vom 18. Juli 1870. Mit den Quellenbelegen, Prague, F. Tempsky, 1871, pp. 188–205 and appendix, pp. 253–268, compiled, in support of “Old Catholicism”, a very complete dossier of these texts, for the most part unpublished or difficult of access.

 

2.1.4 Thomas Netter, Nicholas Tudeschi and Torquemada in the fifteenth century

 

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 fallen from pontifical dignity or deposed by the very fact (Torquemada, Summa de Ecclesia, bk. 2, ch. 112, Rome, Eucharius Silber, 1489). According to other theologians, the pope can, in this case, be judged by a council. Nicholas Tudeschi, or Panormitanus (died 1445), Commentaria in Decretal., bk. 1, tit. 4, c. 4, n. 3, Venice, 1617, vol. 1, p. 108; Thomas Netter or Waldensis (died 1430), Doctrinale antiquitatum fidei Ecclesiae catholicae, bk. 2, a. 3, ch. 80, Venice, 1571, vol. 1, p. 397. References gathered by É. Dublanchy, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, vol. 7/2, col. 1715.

 

É. Dublanchy, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, vol. 7/2, section 2 of the article “Infaillibilité du pape”, cols. 1714–1715.

 

The distinction formulated in this exposition must be kept: Torquemada is cited for forfeiture by the very fact; Netter and Tudeschi for the possibility of a conciliar judgment. Their reunion establishes a tradition of discussion of the heretical pope, without transforming these diverse formulations into a single procedure.

 

2.2 Vacandard and the deposition of popes

 

Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, vol. 4, first part, third printing, Paris, Letouzey et Ané, 1924, É. Vacandard, article “Déposition et dégradation des clercs”, section 6, “Déposition des papes”, cols. 516–520; bibliography, cols. 520–521.

 

Vacandard’s study proceeds from the principle of the primacy to the examination of apparent exceptions. The accounts and attributions below are those reported by this study; acts expressly qualified as apocryphal do not constitute authentic testimonies of the persons to whom they have been attributed.

 

2.2.1 Divine origin of pontifical power

 

The principle according to which no one can be destitued 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 2 of the Decretals, title 1, De judiciis, chapter 13 (Decretals 2.1.13), which takes up the doctrine of Saint Paul: “Potestas nostra non est ex homine, sed ex Deo” (“Our power is not from man, but from God”). Cf. Prosper Fagnani, Commentaria in primum librum Decretalium, book 1, title 6, De electione, chapter 4, Significasti, no. 32, Venice, 1729, p. 223. Thus Pope Innocent III proclaimed aloud his sovereign independence vis-à-vis every human power: “The Roman pontiff,” he says, “has no other superior than God”, “post Deum alium superiorem non habet”. Sermo 4 in consecratione pontificis, Patrologia latina, vol. 217, 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?” (“Since the Roman pontiff has no other lord than God, however much he may fade, who can cast him out?”) Sermo 4 in consecratione pontificis, ibid., col. 670.

 

2.2.2 Symmachus, Ennodius and Avitus on the first See

 

This rule was early formulated in the following terms: “Prima sedes a nemine judicetur” (“Let the first See be judged by no one”). 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 acknowledged 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” (“He has been justly condemned by his own mouth… For never has anyone judged the pontiff, nor a prelate his pontiff; since the first See will be judged by no one”) (Hardouin, vol. 1, col. 217 sq.). When later Pope Symmachus, pursued with unheard-of obstinacy by the partisans of the antipope Laurence, was brought before several synods convened by the king of the Ostrogoths, Theodoric the Great, they dared neither condemn him nor even judge him, because they feared to attack his supreme authority; it was held that he could not be submitted to the judgment of his inferiors: “nec antedictae sedis antistitem minorum subjacuisse judicio” (“and that the pontiff of the aforesaid See was not subjected to the judgment of inferiors”), Hardouin, vol. 2, col. 967. On this affair, see the article “Uno antipapa e uno scisma al tempo del Theodorico”, in Civiltà cattolica, 4 April 1908, pp. 68-78. Ennodius of Pavia (died 521) writes in this connection that, if God willed that “men finish the lawsuits of men”, he reserved to himself the causes of the holy see: “sed sedis istius praesulis suo, sine quaestione, reservavit arbitrio” (“but he reserved to his own judgment, without discussion, the causes of the prelate of this See”) (Gratian, Decree, C. 9, q. 3, 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” (“it is not easily understood by what law a superior would be judged by inferiors”), and praises the synod for having reserved the pope’s conduct to the judgment of God: “divino potius servavit examini” (“it reserved it rather to the examination of God”). “Moreover, if one touches the pope, it is not a bishop, but the whole episcopate that totters.” Epist. ad senat. urbis Romae, in Hardouin, vol. 2, 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” (“let the first See be judged by no one”).

 

2.2.3 Sylvester, Leo III, Gregory VII and Boniface VIII

 

When therefore a forger attributed to Pope Sylvester the famous canon: “Nemo judicabit primam sedem, quoniam omnes sedes a prima sede justitiam desiderant temperari” (“No one will judge the first See, since all sees wish justice to be tempered by the first See”), Act., 2, can. 20, Hardouin, vol. 1, 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. 40, c. 6, specifies it further when he declares that, except in the case of heresy, the pope cannot be judged by anyone: “quia cunctos ipse judicaturus a nemine est judicandus, nisi deprehendatur a fide devius” (“for, himself about to judge all men, he is to be judged by no one, unless he is found deviant from the faith”). This last member of the sentence will be explained further on. Pope Leo III, pursued by calumny, appeared in 800 before an ecclesiastical tribunal where Charlemagne sat. They did not dare, however, to 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” (“We do not dare to judge the Apostolic See… for we are all judged by it and by its vicar; it itself, on the other hand, is judged by no one, according to ancient custom”) (Hardouin, vol. 4, col. 936). The Dictatus of Gregory VII, Hardouin, vol. 6, col. 1304; Gratian, in his decree, dist. 40, c. 6; caus. 9, q. 3, 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” (“You are not to be judged by a man; your judgment is reserved to God alone”). Scriptum Philippi ad dominum papam, Raynaldi, Annal. eccles., year 1206, n. 16. Boniface VIII therefore 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” (“If a lesser spiritual power deviates, it can be judged by its superior; but if it is the supreme power, it can be judged by God alone, and not by a man”). Boniface VIII, Unam sanctam; Extravagantes communes, book 1, title 8, De maioritate et obedientia, unique chapter.

 

2.2.4 The cardinals and their electoral power

 

Besides, who 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; he whom they have just elected, once consecrated, becomes their superior. And therefore they no longer have authority over him.

 

2.2.5 Damasus, Nicholas I and imperial power

 

Would it be the emperor? Christian emperors did sometimes intervene, in fact, in ecclesiastical affairs, even in papal affairs. The Roman council of 378 recalls the judgment that Gratian [the emperor] rendered in favor of Pope Damasus. But it concerned crimes of common law in which 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, Pontificum Romanorum epistolae genuinae, p. 360. Early the principle of the distinction of the two powers was recognized in the Church. The intrusion of the State into 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 jurisdiction in the external forum only by virtue of an imperial concession and, consequently, were subject to the emperors, who could if need be depose them. Cf. Defensor pacis, in Goldast, Monarchia romani imperii, vol. 2, p. 154 sq. But this theory, born in the tumult of a conflict between pope and emperor, obtained no credit among the canonists. Written tradition was already contrary to it. In the famous canon attributed to Pope Sylvester: “Nemo judicabit primam sedem” (“No one will judge the first See”), which is of the time of Theodoric, one read: “neque ab Augusto, neque ab omni clero, neque a regibus … judicabitur” (“he will be judged neither by the emperor, nor by the whole clergy, nor by the kings…”). Hardouin, vol. 1, col. 294. And Pope Nicholas I, recalling to the emperor Michael the principle of the independence of the two powers, had justly concluded from it that the Roman pontiff could not be deposed by the secular power: “a seculari potestate nec ligari posse nec solvi posse pontificem” (“the pontiff can be neither bound nor loosed by the secular power”), Hardouin, vol. 5, col. 171 sq.; Gratian dist. 97, c. 6, 7. The eighth ecumenical council held at Constantinople in 869 solemnly formulates the same doctrine, can. 21, Hardouin, vol. 5, col. 909. Thus when the 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 an excuse was sought in the equally exceptional situation in which the Church found itself: “Inauditum vulnus inaudito est cauterio exurendum” (“An unheard-of wound must be cauterized by an unheard-of remedy”), Hardouin, vol. 6, col. 632.

 

The incompetence of emperors to depose popes results, moreover, from their situation vis-à-vis the papacy. However independent they were in the domain of temporal things, it must not be forgotten that they were consecrated by the Roman pontiffs and that, consequently, in certain respects they held from them or at least through their mediation the supreme authority they exercised over the 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. 1, n. 21-52; dist. 6, n. 13-41; Kober, Die Deposition und Degradation nach den Grundsätzen des kirchlichen Rechts, 1867, pp. 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 them by earlier popes]. But this ratification was obviously not equivalent to a consecration, and conferred no right over him who was its object. Never was an emperor considered 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.

 

2.2.6 Constance, Basel and the limit of conciliar power

 

But if the enterprises of emperors against the papacy were only a temporary accident in the history of the Church, could not 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 obtained the resignation of Gregory XII. Hardouin, vol. 8, cols. 376, 386. This event, which restored peace within Christendom, was hailed by 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. 4 and 5, Hardouin, vol. 8, cols. 252, 258. Cf., on this point, Bellarmine, De conciliis et Ecclesia, book 2, chapter 19; Bossuet, Defensio declarationis cleri gallicani, 5, 2 sq.; Turmel, Histoire de la théologie positive, vol. 2, pp. 365, 373-378.

 

The primacy of the pope is of divine institution, as well as 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 its body. But one does not conceive that the body perform an act of authority without the head; one does not conceive above all that the body 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 be 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. One has indeed seen, it is true, 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. 2, col. 324; Anastasius the Librarian, Hardouin, vol. 5, col. 752; council of Chalcedon, Epist. ad Leon. papam, Hardouin, vol. 3, col. 656; council of Constantinople of 869, Hardouin, vol. 5, col. 917. What one bishop cannot do, two bishops nor ten bishops could do any more. The addition of ten, twenty, a hundred incompetences cannot 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 has not 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 vis-à-vis Saint Peter. But as Ivo of Chartres remarks, if he resisted him, he did not depose him: “In faciem restitit, non tamen eum abjecit”. Ivo of Chartres, Epistola 233, ad Henricum abbatem, Patrologia latina, vol. 162, cols. 235–236, especially col. 236 C. Against a pope who obstinates in evil there is no other resource than “to wait for the time of the harvest” and to refer oneself to the judgment of God. Collective letter to John, archbishop of Lyons, Epistola 236 in the correspondence of Ivo of Chartres, ibid., cols. 238–242, especially cols. 240 D–241 A.

 

2.2.7 Personal justification and superior jurisdiction

 

The sovereign pontiff is therefore above every earthly jurisdiction. This is so true that, even if he wished it, he could not submit himself 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” (“he submitted himself to the judgment of the priests”), council of Rome, Epist. ad Gratian. et Valentinian. imperat., n. 10, in Schœnemann, Pontificum Romanorum epistolae genuinae, p. 360; that Symmachus did the same thing in 501, Synodus roman. Palmaris, Hardouin, vol. 2, col. 967, and that Leo III convened a synod at Rome in 800 to justify himself of the crimes imputed to him. Vita Leonis, in Hardouin, vol. 4, col. 936. This would, moreover, be in conformity with Roman law which poses as a principle that a superior has the right to submit himself to the jurisdiction of an inferior. Digest, book 2, title 1, De iurisdictione omnium iudicum, fragment 14. But it is to be remarked 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” (“humbling his dignity in the desire to clear himself”), says the synod before which Symmachus appeared. Hardouin, vol. 2, col. 969. Cf. for Damasus and Leo III, loc. cit. Doubtless it is common law that a private person can renounce his privilege: “Quilibet potest renuntiare juri suo atque favori privato” (“Anyone can renounce his right and a private advantage”), E. Vacandard, “Déposition et dégradation des clercs”, DTC, vol. 4, 1st part, col. 519. But this is only when it is a question of a personal favor. The sovereign pontiff is not in this case. The immunity he enjoys has been granted him in the general interest. It is not in his power to strip himself of it. Consequently, in every state of the case, the maxim: “prima sedes a nemine judicetur” (“let the first See be judged by no one”), remains true.

 

2.2.8 Adrian II, Innocent III and the case of heresy

 

Nevertheless to this rule two exceptions are commonly admitted. One recalls that the canon attributed to Saint Boniface and cited by Gratian, dist. 40, c. 6, according to which “the pope can judge everyone and cannot be judged by anyone”, contains this reservation: “nisi deprehendatur … a fide devius” (“unless he is found… deviant from the faith”).

 

Heresy therefore constitutes a fault for which a pope can be deposed by the general council. The Roman council of 503 makes the same remark apropos of [Pope] Symmachus: “nisi a recta fide exorbitaverit” (“except if he has departed from the right faith”), Hardouin, vol. 2, col. 984.

 

This doctrine was received and confirmed throughout the Middle Ages. One finds its expression in the third allocution of Pope Adrian II at the fourth council of Constantinople. Hardouin, vol. 5, col. 866. Pseudo-Isidore attributes it to Pope Eusebius. Epist., 2, ad episcop. Alexandrin., c. 11; Paul Hinschius (ed.), Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianae et Capitula Angilramni, Leipzig, 1863, p. 237. Gratian inserts it in his Decree, caus. 2, q. 7, c. 13. Ivo of Chartres recalls it to John, archbishop of Lyons (Epistola 236, Patrologia latina, vol. 162, col. 240 D). 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”. Innocent III, Sermo 2 in consecratione pontificis, Patrologia latina, vol. 217, col. 656. This principle is therefore beyond doubt. Cf. on this point, Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, book 2, chapter 30, Prague, 1721, pp. 384–386; Cano, De locis theologicis, 6, 8; Turmel, Histoire de la théologie positive, from the Council of Trent to the Vatican Council, pp. 366-368.

 

2.2.9 Sutri, Constance and the claimants to the pontificate

 

The rule that applies to heretical popes applies equally to schismatics, and that is the second exception we wish to signal. Toward the middle of the eleventh century, three popes, Benedict IX, Sylvester III and Gregory VI, claimed the right to the tiara. A council assembled 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 toward 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 that assembled 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 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 question of schismatic popes. There was no need, to justify its conduct, to invoke a pretended superiority of the council over the sovereign pontiff.

 

2.2.10 Deposition understood as the finding of a prior loss

 

But when we say that popes can exceptionally be deposed for heresy or schism, we understand the word “deposition” in a wide 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 obstinate in it would at the same time cease to be a member of the Church and consequently to be pope; he would depose himself. Thus Innocent III understands it: “Potest (pontifex) ab hominibus judicari vel potius judicatus ostendi, si videlicet evanescat in haeresim, quoniam qui non credit iam judicatus est” (“The pontiff can be judged by men, or rather be shown as already judged, if he falls into heresy, since he who does not believe is already judged”; Jn 3:18). Innocent III, Sermo 4 in consecratione pontificis, Patrologia latina, vol. 217, col. 670. Cf. Prosper Fagnani, Commentaria in primum librum Decretalium, book 1, title 6, De electione, chapter 4, Significasti, no. 70, Venice, 1729, p. 227. (“… 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 cannot strip him who is already naked”), one reads again. Liber Sextus, book 2, title 5, De restitutione spoliatorum, chapter 1 (Liber Sextus 2.5.1). Cf. Gratian, caus. 24, q. 1, c. 1. A judgment that 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 they did not legitimately possess. Cf. the decree against simoniacs of the council of Rome of 1059, Hardouin, vol. 6, col. 1064; Gratian, dist. 79, c. 9; Gregory XV, const. Aeterni Patris, of 1621, sect. 19, Bullarium roman., vol. 3, p. 446. The councils that struck them only examined their titles to the tiara. It is not the popes they judged, but the election and the act of the electors: “Eo casu, non pontifex maximus, sed factum potius eligentium judicatur” (“In that case, it is not the sovereign pontiff who is judged, but rather the act of the electors”), says Fagnani, Commentaria in primum librum Decretalium, 1, 6, chapter 4, no. 65, Venice, 1729, p. 226. In reality, no one could depose a heretical or schismatic pope, since the first has ceased to be pope and the second never was. Consequently, the exceptions to the rule that written law seems to indicate are only apparent. The principle “prima sedes a nemine judicetur” (“let the first See be judged by no one”) is absolute, it suffers no exception: a pope, whatever his crimes, has, in the external forum, no other judge than God.

 

6. Vacandard, “Déposition et dégradation des clercs”, 6. “Déposition des papes”, in the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, vol. 4, 1st part, cols. 516–520; bibliography, cols. 520–521.

 

The conclusion attributed to Vacandard is precise: the council does not withdraw by a superior jurisdiction the pontificate from him who still possesses it; it finds, in the case envisaged, that the interested party has ceased to be pope. The examples of illegitimate claimants concern another situation, that of titles to be verified. They are not all historical examples of legitimate popes become heretics.

 

2.3 What the two studies contribute together

 

Dublanchy establishes the antiquity of the question and the diversity of its treatments. Vacandard develops the possible agreement between pontifical supremacy and the cessation of the pontificate by obstinate heresy. Their articulation furnishes two complementary arguments: the hypothesis is not foreign to theological tradition; the loss of office can be explained without recognizing in a council a superiority over a true pope. The Dictionary here exposits a theological doctrine; its article is not itself a pontifical act or a conciliar definition.

 

3 Scriptural foundations and patristic testimonies

 

3.1 Saint Paul and separation from the obstinate heretic

 

The scriptural argument invoked by Bellarmine attaches itself to the epistle to Titus, chapter 3, verses 10–11. In the passage reproduced by the studies, the order to avoid the obstinate heretic is understood as prior to a judicial excommunication. The application to the pontiff is a theological reasoning: if one must separate from a manifest heretic, the latter cannot continue to be the head to which the Church remains united. This application must be distinguished from the biblical text itself, which does not formulate a procedure of pontifical vacancy.

 

3.2 Saint John and the judgment already incurred

 

Innocent III invokes John 3:18 when he explains that the pontiff fallen into heresy can be shown as already judged. The D.T.C. and Fagnani take up this reasoning. The scriptural citation founds the idea of a condemnation linked to unbelief; the explanation of its effect on the pontifical office is that of the authors who apply it to this question. References: Innocent III, sermon 4 for the consecration of the pontiff, Patrologia Latina, volume 217, column 670; Fagnani, Commentaria in primum librum Decretalium, book 1, title 6, chapter 4, number 70, Venice, 1729, p. 227.

 

3.3 Saint Cyprian and the other Fathers invoked by Bellarmine

 

The two studies attach to Bellarmine the testimonies of Saint Cyprian, Saint Athanasius, Saint Augustine and Saint Jerome. The argument attributed to them bears on belonging to the Church and the jurisdiction of manifest heretics. It is Bellarmine who formulates its explicit application to the pope in De Romano Pontifice, book 2, chapter 30. The affirmation of an agreement of all the ancient Fathers is therefore here a judgment of Bellarmine on the patristic tradition; it does not mean that each of the Fathers personally wrote a treatise on the heretical pope.

 

Saint Cyprian is cited by Bellarmine under the numbering book 4, letter 2. Reference: Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, book 2, chapter 30, Prague, 1721, pp. 384–386.

 

3.4 Saint Vincent of Lérins and fidelity to the received faith

 

The Commonitorium is invoked as a rule of fidelity to Tradition. It supports the priority of the received faith in the examination of a doctrine. The loss of the papal charge by heresy does not however follow from the mere statement of the Vincentian criterion: it is developed by the canonical and theological authorities cited in the following chapters.

 

3.5 The Liber Diurnus and the attribution to Saint Agatho

 

The Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum contains two promises of doctrinal fidelity, in two distinct passages: edition Jean Garnier, Paris, 1680, pp. 20 and 43–44.

 

The first formula bears: “Nihil de Traditione, quod a probatissimis praedecessoribus meis servatum reperi, diminuere vel mutare, aut aliquam novitatem admittere”. Translation: “To diminish or change nothing of the tradition that I have found preserved by my most approved predecessors, nor to admit any novelty.” It belongs to the Indicium Pontificis, placed in parallel by Garnier with a Professio Pontificia; reference: pp. 16–22, passage p. 20.

 

The second formula submits to anathema whoever, including him who makes the profession, would undertake a novelty contrary to evangelical tradition, to the orthodox faith and to the integrity of the Christian religion. The decisive words are “seu nos, sive est alius”: “whether it be we or another”. Reference: same edition, pp. 43–44.

 

In the first formula, Agatho is expressly called predecessor, p. 18: “Agathone Apostolico praedecessore meo”, that is, “Agatho, my apostolic predecessor”. These professions attest the duty of keeping the received faith and the condemnation of its violation; they do not themselves enunciate a procedure of loss of the pontificate.

 

4 Medieval authors and the passage to modern controversies

 

4.1 Medieval canonists and obstinate heresy

 

Deusdedit, Ivo of Chartres, Gratian, Rufinus, John of Faenza, the authors of the Summae of Paris and of Leipzig, Huguccio, Bernard of Pavia and Hostiensis are studied together in chapter 2. Their chronological order and their principal formulations are kept there. The common point of these testimonies is the taking into consideration of a deviation of faith of the pontiff; Rufinus specifies obstinacy, and John of Faenza evokes warnings.

 

Huguccio of Pisa envisages the accusation and condemnation of the pope for a notorious crime, if he refuses to cease after warning: “si admonitus non vult cessare” (“if, warned, he does not wish to cease”). He considers notably the case of a public fornication or a public concubine and recalls the refusal to cease after warning. He brings together, in interrogative form, the scandal thus given to the Church with heresy. Summa, extracts published by Johann Friedrich von Schulte, Die Stellung der Concilien, Päpste und Bischöfe, Prague, F. Tempsky, 1871, appendix, no. 308, pp. 259–264, especially p. 263.

 

This extension to scandalous fault must not be confused with a strict definition of doctrinal heresy nor with a general equivalence between immorality and heresy.

 

4.2 Thomas Netter and Nicholas Tudeschi

 

Dublanchy cites Thomas Netter, called Waldensis, and Nicholas Tudeschi, called Panormitanus, among the theologians and canonists who envisage the judgment of a heretical pope by a council. Transmitted references: Netter, Doctrinale antiquitatum fidei Ecclesiae catholicae, book 2, article 3, chapter 80, Venice, 1571, volume 1, p. 397; Tudeschi, Commentaria in Decretales, book 1, title 4, chapter 4, number 3, Venice, 1617, volume 1, p. 108. These references are received through Dublanchy.

 

4.3 Saint Antoninus of Florence

 

Bishop Saint Antoninus, archbishop of Florence (1389–1459), writes: “When [the pope] falls into heresy, he is, by the very fact, cut off from the Church and ceases to be its head; he is then deposed in fact, not in right, for he who does not believe is already judged in right. But this precedes the judgment: by the sole fact that he is a heretic, he is cut off from the Church. Now a head cut off from a body cannot, so long as it remains separated from it, be the head of the body from which it has been cut off. The pope therefore ceases thereby to be the head of the body of the Church. Thus a heretic cannot be nor remain pope, for, outside the Church, one cannot possess the keys of the Church.” (Summa theologica, third part, title 22, chapter 4, De depositione papae, § 3, Strasbourg, Johann Grüninger, 1496.)

 

The argument attributed to Saint Antoninus is that of belonging to the body: separation from the Church renders impossible the conservation of the function of head. He is here cited as a saint theologian.

 

4.4 Juan de Torquemada

 

Torquemada is cited by Dublanchy for the immediate forfeiture of pontifical dignity in the hypothesis of heresy. The transmitted reference is Summa de Ecclesia, book 2, chapter 112, Rome, Eucharius Silber, 1489.

 

4.5 Girolamo Savonarola and Alexander VI

 

Girolamo Savonarola (1452–1498): “The Lord […] has, for some time already, permitted that the Church be without a pastor. For I attest to you in the name of the Lord that this Alexander VI is in no way pontiff and cannot be admitted to the pontificate. […] This is what I affirm in the first place and in the most certain manner: this man is not a Christian; believing absolutely not that there exists a God, he exceeds all the limits of infidelity and of impiety.” Letter to the Emperor, translation of the Latin published by F. T. Perrens, Jérôme Savonarole d’après les documents originaux et avec des pièces justificatives en grande partie inédites, 3rd ed., Paris, Librairie de L. Hachette et Cie, 1859, appendix, piece 12, pp. 409–411, especially p. 410.

 

This passage constitutes the accusation of an author against a determined pontiff. It testifies to a claimed application of the incompatibility between infidelity and the papacy; the accusation does not prove by itself its truth. The existence of a vacancy under Alexander VI cannot therefore be concluded from this sole testimony.

 

4.6 Cajetan and the distinction between the person and the pontificate

 

Cardinal Cajetan (Thomas de Vio, died 1534) affirmed with reason, apropos of the bishop of Rome: “As soon as he ceases to be faithful, he also ceases to be the successor of Peter according to the reality of the thing and before God […] whatever may be the case in the ecclesiastical forum.” De divina institutione pontificatus Romani pontificis (1521), chapter 13, ed. Friedrich Lauchert, Münster, Aschendorff, 1925, p. 83, cited by José Arturo Domínguez Asensio, Archivo Teológico Granadino, 44, 1981, p. 49, note 180. Therefore a pope can cease to be faithful and therefore cease to be pope.

 

Giacomo Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan, O.P. (1469–1534): the celebrated axiom “Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia” (“Where Peter is, there is the Church”) holds true only when the pope acts and behaves as pope; otherwise, “neither would the Church be in him, nor he in the Church”. Cajetan, Commentaria in Secundam Secundae, q. 39, a. 1, no. 6, in the Opera omnia of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Leonine edition, vol. 8, Rome, 1895, p. 308; Charles Journet, L’Église du Verbe incarné, vol. 2, pp. 839–840, cited by Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, Considerações sobre o “Ordo Missae” de Paulo VI, 1970, p. 36.

 

If the Sovereign Pontiff subverts the ecclesiastical ceremonies, disobeys the law of Christ, orders what is contrary to the natural or divine law, or pertinaciously fails to respect what has been established for the common order of the Church, then “neither would the Church be in him, nor he in the Church”. Suárez, De charitate, disp. 12, sect. 1, no. 2, in Opera omnia, vol. 12, Paris, Louis Vivès, 1858, pp. 733–734; Torquemada, Summa de Ecclesia, book 4, first part, ch. 11, fol. 369 verso, cited by Silveira, Considerações sobre o “Ordo Missae” de Paulo VI, 1970, p. 37; Cajetan, Commentaria in Secundam Secundae, q. 39, a. 1, no. 6, Leonine edition, vol. 8, Rome, 1895, p. 308.

 

These texts must keep their respective objects. The remark on schism does not demonstrate that every pontifical abuse would immediately entail a vacancy. Bellarmine examines and expressly combats an opinion of Cajetan according to which the manifestly heretical pope must be deposed by the Church. It is therefore not exact to make of Cajetan, without distinction, a witness of the same solution as Bellarmine. References: Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, book 2, chapter 30, no. 5 of the Prague edition, 1721, p. 384; Cajetan, De comparatione auctoritatis Papae et Concilii, chapters 19–20, in Scripta theologica, volume 1, edition Vincentius M. Iacobus Pollet, Rome, Institutum Angelicum, 1936, pp. 124–127, notably nos. 274, 282–283. Cajetan distinguishes the pontificate, the person and their conjunction; he exposits a ministerial intervention of the Church relative to deposition, without attributing to it an authority superior to that of the pope.

 

5 Popes and theologians of the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries

 

5.1 Paul IV and the bull Cum ex apostolatus officio

 

Paul IV — Bull Cum ex apostolatus officio, 15 February 1559, § 1:

 

“Considering the gravity and so great danger of this situation, to the point that the Roman pontiff, who holds on earth the place of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ and possesses the fullness of power over nations and kingdoms, who judges all men and must be judged by no one in this world, can, if he is found deviant from the faith, be rebuked.” Translation from the Latin; Pietro Gasparri, Codicis iuris canonici fontes, vol. 1, Rome, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1947, no. 94, § 1, p. 163.

 

And, in the very terms of the Latin text: “possit, si deprehendatur a fide devius, redargui”: “can be rebuked, if he is found deviant from the faith”. Same reference.

 

The second passage concerns heresy anterior to the election. It must be read separately from the problem of a validly elected pope who would afterwards fall into heresy. Translation of the passage on the election:

 

“Moreover, if it should one day appear that some bishop (even acting as archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether before his promotion to the cardinalate, or before his election as Roman Pontiff), had previously deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into some heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define:

 

– Such a promotion or election, in itself and by itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, will be null, legally invalid and without effect.

 

– It will not be possible that this promotion or election be considered valid or be valid, neither by the reception of the charge, nor by consecration, nor by subsequent administration, nor by possession, nor even by the putative enthronement of the Roman Pontiff himself, jointly with the veneration and obedience granted him by all.

 

– Such a promotion or election will not, by any lapse of time in the aforementioned situation, be considered even partially legitimate in any manner.

 

– Each and all the words, as well as the acts, the laws, the nominations of those thus promoted or elected – and indeed everything that follows from them – will be devoid of force, and will grant no stability nor any legal power to anyone.

 

– Those thus promoted or elected, by this very fact and without need of any subsequent declaration, will be deprived of every dignity, position, honor, title, authority, charge and power.” (Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, 15 February 1559)

 

The two situations converge toward the incompatibility between the rupture of faith and the pontifical function, but they differ juridically: in the one, the title has not been validly acquired; in the other, one examines its subsequent loss. Reference: Gasparri, Codicis iuris canonici fontes, volume 1, number 94, pp. 163–166.

 

5.2 Saint Robert Bellarmine and loss by the law itself

 

Cardinal Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, writes on this question: “The fifth opinion is therefore true: the manifestly heretical pope ceases of himself to be pope and head, as he ceases of himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church; for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. Such is the doctrine of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” (De Romano Pontifice, book 2, chapter 30, no. 18 of this edition, in Disputationes de controversiis christianae fidei, vol. 1, Prague, 1721, p. 386.)

 

Bellarmine expresses the same conclusion. He writes that “the manifest heretic is deposed by the very fact”; he explains further that Saint Paul’s order to avoid the obstinate heretic is understood “before any excommunication and any sentence of the judge”. He concludes: “The manifestly heretical pope ceases of himself to be pope and head, as he ceases of himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church; for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church.” (De Romano Pontifice, book 2, chapter 30, nos. 5 and 18 of this edition, in Disputationes de controversiis christianae fidei, vol. 1, Prague, 1721, pp. 384 and 386.)

 

The order of his reasoning is decisive. First, the manifest heretic ceases to belong to the visible body of the Church. Second, the head of this body must be a member of it. Third, the manifest heretic cannot therefore conserve the quality of head. The subsequent judgment of the Church bears on a man who, according to this solution, has already ceased to be pope.

 

The expression of Christian must be read in this context of ecclesial belonging; the reasoning does not require one to suppose the erasure of the baptismal character. Bellarmine’s argument aims precisely at the conservation of a function of government in the body from which the manifest heretic has separated himself.

 

5.3 Saint Francis de Sales

 

Francis de Sales distinguishes personal error and the teaching of the pope in the exercise of his ministry. In the English translation of H. B. Mackey, he writes: “Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church”. Translation: “Now, when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls by the very fact from his dignity and out of the Church.”

 

He immediately continues by saying that the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived of his Apostolic See, and invokes Acts 1:20. This sequel is necessary to restore his complete formulation: the affirmation of the fall by the very fact is accompanied by the mention of an intervention of the Church.

 

Reference: Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversy, translation H. B. Mackey, 3rd revised and enlarged edition, London, Burns & Oates; New York, Cincinnati and Chicago, Benziger Brothers, 1909, part 2, article 6, chapter 14, pp. 305–306, especially p. 306.

 

5.4 Prosper Fagnani and the two functions of judgment

 

Fagnani distinguishes the power conferred by God and the human act of election. The Church can examine the act of the electors and the titles of a claimant; it can also find the situation of him who has lost the required belonging. References: Commentaria in primum librum Decretalium, book 1, title 6, chapter 4, numbers 32, 65–66 and 70, Venice, 1729, pp. 223, 226–227. This argument prevents confusing the recognition of a vacancy with the exercise of a jurisdiction superior to the pontiff.

 

5.5 Saint Alphonsus de Liguori

 

Saint Alphonsus de Liguori (died 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 subject to the judgment of no one”. Du Pape et du Concile, translation of P. Jules Jacques, Tournai, Vve H. Casterman, 1869, first treatise, ch. 3, art. 2, p. 63. For, apropos of a pope who would fall notoriously and persevere obstinately in heresy, he writes: “Nevertheless, there are some who claim with more foundation that, in this last case, the Pope would not be deprived of the pontificate by the Council, as if the latter were superior to him, but that he would be stripped of it directly by Jesus Christ, because he would then become a completely unfit subject and fallen from his charge.” Same work, first treatise, ch. 3, art. 1, p. 31.

 

Saint Alphonsus de Liguori summarized the matter perfectly by explaining that “God has granted to the Church, that is to the college of cardinals, or else 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.” Du Pape et du Concile, translation of P. Jules Jacques, Tournai, Vve H. Casterman, 1869, first treatise, ch. 3, art. 2, p. 78.

 

Saint Alphonsus Mary de Liguori, Doctor of the Church (1696–1787), writes: “Del resto, se Dio permettesse che un papa fosse notoriamente eretico e contumace, egli cesserebbe d’essere papa, e vacherebbe il pontificato.” Translation: “For the rest, if God permitted that a pope were notoriously heretical and contumacious, he would cease to be pope, and the pontificate would be vacant.” Verità della fede, part 3, chapter 8, no. 10, in Opere dogmatiche, unique volume, Opere, volume 8, Turin, Giacinto Marietti, 1880, p. 720. He also taught that papal heresy should be “notorious” before a loss takes place. He writes likewise: “We reply that if ever the Pope, as a private person, fell into heresy, he would instantly be fallen from the pontificate; for, as he would then be outside the Church, he could no longer be head of the Church.” Du Pape et du Concile, translation of P. Jules Jacques, Tournai, Vve H. Casterman, 1869, second treatise, Defense of the supreme power of the Sovereign Pontiff against Justin Febronius, chapter 8, reply 6°, pp. 359–360.

 

The more developed formulation of Du Pape et du Concile keeps the author’s nuance: he presents as better founded the explanation of a deprivation operated directly by Jesus Christ, the subject having become unfit. The shorter formula of the Verità della fede must not make this discussion disappear. The possibility of electing a successor is likewise distinct from the possession of pontifical power: disposing of the choice of the person does not mean disposing of the primacy itself.

 

6 Vatican I and the testimonies of the nineteenth century

 

6.1 Pastor aeternus and the conservation of the deposit of faith

 

“Neque enim Petri successoribus Spiritus sanctus promissus est, ut eo revelante novam doctrinam patefacerent, sed ut eo assistente traditam per apostolos revelationem seu fidei depositum sancte custodirent et fideliter exponerent.” (Constitutio Dogmatica Prima de Ecclesia Christi [Pastor Aeternus], cap. 4, “De Romani Pontificis Infallibili Magisterio”)

 

[Indeed, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter so that by His revelation they might make known some new doctrine, but so that with His assistance they might religiously keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the Apostles.]

 

This conciliar text is invoked for the finality of the assistance: to conserve and expound the Revelation transmitted by the Apostles. It does not formulate, in the passage cited, a procedure of forfeiture for heresy. The dogma of infallibility and the theological question of the personal heresy of the pontiff must therefore be distinguished. The absence of the conditions of an ex cathedra definition does not suffice, by itself, to demonstrate that a given teaching is erroneous.

 

6.2 The report of Federico Zinelli

 

And during this same Vatican I council, Bishop Zinelli, relator of the deputation of the faith, evoked the possibility of a heretical pope and declared: “At Deus in necessariis non deest; ac proinde si ipse permitteret tantum malum, non deerunt media ad providendum”. Translation: “But God does not fail in necessary things; consequently, if He Himself permitted so great an evil, the means of providing for it would not be wanting.” Intervention of 5 July 1870, 83rd general congregation; Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, vol. 52, ed. Louis Petit and Jean-Baptiste Martin, Arnhem–Leipzig, 1927, col. 1109.

 

Zinelli, trusting in Providence, judges the realization of such an evil very improbable. This reservation accompanies his affirmation that the means of providing for it would not be wanting. His intervention is therefore neither an absolute negation of the hypothesis nor a conciliar definition detailing the procedure to be followed.

 

6.3 The testimony of John Baptist Purcell transmitted by McGovern

 

The Most Reverend John Baptist Purcell, D.D., archbishop of Cincinnati, Ohio (1800–1883), delivered at Cincinnati, after his return from the Vatican I council, an address on the infallibility of the pope as defined at the council. He explained the following. The question had also been raised by a cardinal: “What is to be done with the pope if he becomes a heretic?” James J. McGovern, op. cit., pp. 236 and 241.

 

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 a heretic, he is neither head nor even member of the Church. The Church would not, for an instant, be obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine it knows to be false, 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. This supposition, in its very idea, is injurious to the Holy Father; but it serves to show you with what amplitude the subject has been examined and what profound reflection has been devoted to all the possibilities. If he denies any dogma of the Church professed by every true believer, he is no more pope than you or I; and thus, in this respect, the dogma of infallibility furnishes no title of temporal government nor any cover for heresy.” Translation from the English; James J. McGovern, The Life and Life-Work of Pope Leo XIII, 1903, p. 241.

 

It is an address delivered after Purcell’s return to Cincinnati and reproduced by McGovern. This account is not the text of a decree of Vatican I. Its remark on the absence of historical precedent is that of the account; it does not amount to an exhaustive examination of all the cases alleged in history.

 

6.4 Josef Fessler in 1875

 

Fessler comments on Paul IV’s bull and distinguishes a private opinion from ex cathedra teaching.

 

Translation: “If then, as has been supposed, a man were elected pope who held a heretical doctrine — without supposing that he could declare such a doctrine to the whole Church, formally as Catholic doctrine of faith, or prescribe that it be held as such —, we would then have before us the case for which Pope Paul IV provides, in paragraph 6 of the aforementioned bull, by annulling the election of such a man to the papacy and declaring it null and without effect.”

 

Reference: Joseph Fessler, The True and the False Infallibility of the Popes. A Controversial Reply to Dr. Schulte, New York, The Catholic Publication Society, 1875, pp. 89–90, passage p. 90. His argument here concerns the election of a man already attached to a heretical doctrine. One must not substitute for it the thesis of a heretical ex cathedra definition nor present this private explanation as a decree of Vatican I.

 

6.5 Henry Ignatius Dudley Ryder

 

Ryder explains that Catholic theologians have admitted a judgment of the Church in the case of heresy, because, according to most, the pontiff then ceases to be pope. He expressly distinguishes two explanations: Torquemada and Bellarmine teach cessation by the very fact; Cajetan and John of Saint Thomas require a formal deposition for formal cessation.

 

This testimony confirms the antiquity of the question and the importance of Bellarmine’s solution. It also establishes that the agreement of authors is not uniform on the mechanism of the forfeiture.

 

Reference: H. I. D. Ryder, Catholic Controversy. A Reply to Dr. Littledale’s “Plain Reasons”, 8th edition, London, Burns & Oates; New York, Cincinnati and Chicago, Benziger Brothers, undated, part 1, section 7, subdivision 5, “The Deposition of Popes”, p. 30.

 

6.6 The scope of historical assertions about pontifical errors

 

In his discourse delivered at Cincinnati on his return from Vatican I, as published by James J. McGovern, Archbishop Purcell reports this objection: “You tell us that there were, in the first centuries, some forty popes who taught what some now consider an erroneous doctrine.” He then reports a reply bearing on the non-ex cathedra character of these teachings, addressed to individuals and not to the universal Church. This allegation is not introduced as a premise of the demonstration. James J. McGovern, The Life and Life-Work of Pope Leo XIII, 1903, ch. 18, pp. 236 and 239–240.

 

7 The Code of 1917 and the theologians and canonists of the twentieth century

 

7.1 Louis Billot in the 1909 edition

 

Billot examines the hypothesis of a pontiff who would become notoriously heretical. He writes: “Facta ergo hypothesi papae qui fieret notorie haereticus, incunctanter concedendum est quod ipso facto amitteret pontificalem potestatem”. Translation: “The hypothesis therefore being posited of a pope who would become notoriously heretical, it must then be granted without hesitation that he would lose by the very fact the pontifical power.” He gives as reason the voluntary separation from the body of the Church, consequent upon infidelity.

 

The context distinguishes interior or occult heresy and that which cuts the man from the visible body of the Church, exterior and notorious. Billot refuses to make the deposition of a pope still pope an act of an inferior authority. He therefore retains, under the admitted hypothesis, the loss by the law itself.

 

He adds however immediately that he judges it much more probable that this hypothesis remains a mere hypothesis and is never realized. Further on, he defends the adhesion of the universal Church as an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a pontiff and rejects, on that title, Savonarola’s accusation against Alexander VI. It would therefore be inexact to cite Billot as affirming without reservation the possible realization of the case or as approving the historical application of Savonarola.

 

Reference: Louis Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, volume 1, 3rd edition, Prato, Giachetti, sons and associates, 1909, question 14, thesis 29, paragraph 2, pp. 614–620; passage on the loss by the law itself and immediate reservation, p. 617; universal reception and Savonarola, paragraph 3, pp. 620–621.

 

7.2 Joseph Wilhelm in the Catholic Encyclopedia in 1910

 

Joseph Wilhelm writes: “The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.” Translation: “The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope, because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”

 

Joseph Wilhelm, “Heresy”, The Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7, New York, Robert Appleton Company, 1910, section on the ecclesiastical sanctions of heresy.

 

Wilhelm’s argument is that the quality of head requires belonging to the body.

 

7.3 Benedict XV and canon 188 number 4

 

The Code of 1917 is invoked for the vacancy of office linked to the public defection from the Catholic faith. Here is the translation of canon 188, number 4:

 

“By tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric: … 4) has publicly abandoned the Catholic faith.” (Codex Iuris Canonici 1917)

 

The general disposition concerns ecclesiastical offices. The application to the primacy must be read with the reasoning of divine right of the theologians: an inferior human legislator does not withdraw from the pope his supreme jurisdiction. The canon is an element of the canonical argumentation; it does not replace the demonstration of the incompatibility of manifest heresy with the quality of head of the Church.

 

7.4 Caesar Badii in 1921

 

Caesar Badii, Institutiones Iuris Canonici, Florence, Libreria Editrice Fiorentina, 1921, markers 160 and 165 cited by Cekada:

 

“c) The law presently in force for the election of the Roman Pontiff reduces itself to these points: …

 

Are excluded as incapable of being validly elected: women, children who have not reached the age of reason, those who suffer from habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics. …

 

Cessation of pontifical power. This power ceases: …

 

(d) By notorious and openly divulged heresy. A publicly heretical pope would no longer be a member of the Church; for this reason, he could no longer be its head.”

 

Two incapacities are brought together: that of being validly elected and that of conserving the pontificate after a notorious and divulged heresy. Badii’s argument, as transmitted, is expressly that of belonging to the Church.

 

Badii, cited by Anthony Cekada, Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope, appendix 1, pp. 9–10.

 

7.5 Dominic Prümmer in 1927

 

Dominic Prümmer (Manuale Iuris Canonici, Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1927, p. 95):

 

“The power of the Roman Pontiff is lost: …

 

(c) By his perpetual insanity or by formal heresy. And this at least probably. …

 

The authors indeed commonly teach that a pope loses his power by a certain and notorious heresy, but one justly doubts whether this case is really possible.

 

Basing themselves on the supposition, however, that a pope could fall into heresy as a private person (for as pope he could not err in the faith, because he would be infallible), various authors have elaborated different answers as to the manner in which he could then be deprived of his power. None of these answers, nevertheless, exceeds the limits of probability.”

 

One must keep together the two aspects of this testimony: Prümmer reports a common teaching on the loss of power by certain and notorious heresy; he also expresses a doubt on the possibility of the case and holds the solutions relative to the deprivation of power within the limits of probability. To cite him as affirming a unanimous certainty on all these points would invert the sense of the reservation he formulates.

 

Prümmer’s passage and his reservation are reproduced in English translation by Cekada, appendix 1, p. 10, with the reference Manuale Iuris Canonici, Freiburg im Breisgau, Herder, 1927, p. 95.

 

7.6 Vermeersch and Creusen in the 1929 edition

 

In the 4th edition of the Epitome Iuris Canonici, volume 1, Mechlin–Rome, H. Dessain, 1929, number 300, p. 222, Vermeersch and Creusen enumerate as causes of cessation of pontifical power death, free resignation, certain and certainly perpetual insanity, then notorious heresy.

 

Translation: “At least according to the more common opinion, the Roman pontiff can, as a private doctor, fall into a manifest heresy. Then, without a declaratory sentence — for the supreme See is judged by no one —, he would lose by the very fact a power of which he cannot enjoy who is no longer a member of the Church. However, by reason of the divine Providence over the Church, the case must be held as altogether improbable.”

 

The Latin of the last sentence is: “Casus tamen, ob divinam de Ecclesia providentiam, omnino improbabilis habendus est.” It concerns the realization of the case; it does not annul the consequence that the authors expound under the hypothesis.

 

7.7 The commentary of H. A. Ayrinhac

 

221. A. Ayrinhac exposits, under the heading “Resignation” (canons 185–191), the liberty of accepting or refusing ecclesiastical offices and of resigning them after having accepted them. Unless there is a particular disposition, this rule “applies to all charges, the lowest and the highest, without excepting the supreme pontificate”; he then refers to canon 221. General Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law, 1923, chapter “Loss of Ecclesiastical Offices”, section “Resignation”, no. 341, p. 346.

 

Ayrinhac’s sentence concerns the rule of resignation of offices, in the section devoted to canons 185–191. It does not suffice, in isolation, to prove that each of their dispositions would apply identically to the pontiff.

 

7.8 Wernz and Vidal in 1943

 

The Latin text bears: “Per haeresim notoriam et palam divulgatam R. Pontifex, si in illam incidat, ipso facto etiam ante omnem sententiam declaratoriam Ecclesiae sua potestate iurisdictionis privatus existit.” Translation: “By a notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman pontiff, if he falls into it, finds himself, by the very fact and before any declaratory sentence of the Church, deprived of his power of jurisdiction.”

 

The authors then present five opinions. They qualify as pious and probable that which denies that the pope can become personally heretical, but say that it cannot be called certain and common. They reject the explanation that would maintain jurisdiction until a sentence producing the deposition; they retain Bellarmine’s opinion as better founded and more common.

 

Their proof is explicit: he who is no longer a member of the body of the Church, considered as a visible society, cannot be its head. The declaratory sentence can show that the subject has already separated himself from the Church and deprived himself of his dignity; it does not withdraw from him a pontifical jurisdiction that he would still conserve.

 

Reference: F. X. Wernz and P. Vidal, Ius Canonicum, volume 2, De personis, 3rd edition revised by P. Aguirre, Rome, Gregorian University, 1943, number 453, pp. 517–518.

 

7.9 Udalricus Beste in 1946

 

Udalricus Beste (Introductio in Codicem, 3rd ed., Collegeville: St John’s Abbey Press, 1946, Canon 221):

 

“A number of canonists teach that, besides death and abdication, pontifical dignity can also be lost by a certain insanity, which is juridically equivalent to death, as well as by a manifest and notorious heresy. In this last case, a pope would fall automatically from his power, and this without the issuance of any sentence, for the first See [that is, the See of Peter] is judged by no one.

 

The reason is that, in falling into heresy, the pope ceases to be a member of the Church. He who is not a member of a society cannot obviously be its head. We find no example of this in history.”

 

Beste is cited for the loss without sentence, motivated by the cessation of belonging to the Church. The remark on the absence of historical example belongs to the author’s appreciation; it does not transform the hypothetical case into a theological impossibility.

 

Beste, cited by Cekada, appendix 1, p. 10: Introductio in Codicem, 3rd edition, 1946, commentary on canon 221.

 

7.10 Matthaeus Conte a Coronata in the third edition

 

Coronata distinguishes the conditions for receiving the primacy and the causes of loss of office. The 3rd edition of the Institutiones Iuris Canonici, volume 1, published by Marietti, whose preliminaries are dated 1947, contains two passages: number 312, p. 366, and number 316, pp. 372–373.

 

At number 312, he requires for validity that the subject be a man endowed with the use of reason, in relation notably with the ordination he must receive; he also requires belonging to the Church. He excludes from it heretics and apostates, at least public ones: “Item ad valorem requiritur ut fiat de membro Ecclesiae; proinde excluduntur haeretici et apostatae, saltem publici.” Translation: “Likewise it is required for validity that the choice fall upon a member of the Church; heretics and apostates, at least public ones, are therefore excluded.”

 

At number 316, under the title “Haeresi notoria” (“By notorious heresy”), he reports that some authors deny the possibility of a heretical pontiff. He continues that the impossibility for the pope, as a private doctor, of becoming heretical is not demonstrated; he takes the example of the obstinate denial of a previously defined dogma and recalls the testimony of Innocent III.

 

Latin text: “Si vero casus accidat ipse ex iure divino ab officio, sine ulla sententia, ne declaratoria quidem, decidit.” Translation: “If however the case occurred, he would fall from office by divine right, without any sentence, even declaratory.” Coronata explains that he who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, then concludes to the deprivation of authority before any sentence. Reference: p. 373.

 

7.11 Eduardus Regatillo in 1956

 

Eduardus F. Regatillo (Institutiones Iuris Canonici, 5th ed., Santander: Sal Terrae, 1956, volume 1, marker 396, cited by Cekada):

 

“The Roman Pontiff ceases to exercise his charge: …

 

(4) By public notorious heresy? Five answers have been given:

 

1. ‘The pope cannot be a heretic even as a private teacher.’ This is a pious opinion, but little founded.

 

2. ‘The pope loses his charge even by secret heresy.’ False, because a secret heretic can be a member of the Church.

 

3. ‘The pope does not lose his charge because of public heresy.’ Improbable.

 

4. ‘The pope loses his charge by a judicial sentence because of public heresy.’ But who would render the sentence? The first See is judged by no one (Canon 1556).

 

5. ‘The pope loses his charge ipso facto because of public heresy.’ This is the more common teaching, because a pope would not be a member of the Church, and consequently still less could he be its head.”

 

The fifth answer is given as more common. The table of the five answers attests at the same time that the history of the question comprises several positions. The positive argument retained remains that of the head who must belong to the body.

 

Regatillo, cited by Cekada, appendix 1, pp. 10–11.

 

7.12 Serapius Iragui in 1959

 

Serapius Iragui (Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae, Madrid: Ediciones Studium, 1959, p. 371):

 

“Theologians commonly concede that the Roman Pontiff, if he fell into a manifest heresy, would no longer be a member of the Church, and therefore could not either be called its visible head.”

 

Iragui, cited in English translation by Cekada, appendix 1, p. 9: Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae, Madrid, Ediciones Studium, 1959, p. 371. The cited sentence expresses a consequence under hypothesis.

 

7.13 Anthony Cekada and Fernand Claeys Bouuaert

 

Anthony Cekada gathers several of the preceding texts in Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope, dated 1995 and 2006, appendix 1, pp. 7–11. He supports the loss of authority by defection from the faith and applies this argument to the postconciliar crisis. His collection is the intermediate source of several citations reproduced here.

 

In the article “Déposition” of the Dictionnaire de droit canonique directed by Raoul Naz, F. Claeys Bouuaert distinguishes the judgment of deposition in the strict sense from the manifestation of a judgment already acquired. In the hypothesis of a public and formal heresy of the pope, “he would not be deprived of his charge by a judgment of men, but by his own fact”. Dictionnaire de droit canonique, vol. 4, 1949, cols. 1158–1159, cited by Jean-Michel Gleize, “Si Papa”, Courrier de Rome, no. 621, May 2019, pp. 3–4, nos. 10–11. The idea of finding is attested in Vacandard and Wernz–Vidal.

 

8 Logical synthesis of the arguments and conditions of the loss of office

 

8.1 The argument of the head and the body

 

The demonstration supported by Bellarmine and the cited authors takes this form: the visible head of the Church must belong to this Church; the manifest heretic has broken the required belonging; he cannot therefore continue to be this head. It is a theological conclusion drawn from the ecclesiological premises admitted by these authors. Its application to a person requires that it be demonstrated that this person actually corresponds to the second premise.

 

8.2 Loss by divine right and the ecclesiastical declaration

 

In Bellarmine’s solution, manifest heresy entails the loss before the intervention that finds, judges or sanctions the situation. Vacandard gives deposition this wide sense. The citations of Wernz and Vidal, Beste, Vermeersch and Creusen, as well as Coronata, present explicitly the loss without sentence. A declaration can then have for function to render the situation certain and common in the Church, without creating the deprivation of office.

 

The existence of another explanation is however reported by Ryder and appears in Bellarmine’s discussion of Cajetan. One must therefore distinguish the disagreement on the mechanism of the forfeiture and the agreement on the necessity of preserving the Church from heresy.

 

8.3 Formal heresy, pertinacity and warnings

 

Canon 1325, paragraph 2, of the Code of 1917 includes the pertinacious denial or doubt of a truth to be believed by divine and Catholic faith in the definition of the heretic. It does not pose as a universal element of this definition a prior monition emanating from a superior. The absence of a human superior over the pontiff does not therefore suppress, by itself, the distinction between material error and pertinacious adhesion to error.

 

This distinction is also present in the dossier: Rufinus speaks of obstinate error; John of Faenza evokes warnings; Vacandard supposes a pope who falls into heresy and obstinates in it; Prümmer employs the expression of formal heresy. Warnings can manifest or establish obstinacy; their role in a determined procedure must be examined according to each author, without making of them an identical condition in all the explanations.

 

8.4 Public, manifest and notorious

 

Canon 2197 distinguishes the public delict, notoriety of law and notoriety of fact. A public delict is already divulged or finds itself in circumstances allowing one to foresee its divulgation. Notoriety of law holds notably to a judicial decision become definitive; notoriety of fact supposes a publicity and circumstances that exclude the concealment of the fact and its juridical excuse. This distinction is certain in the text of the canon. The public and the notorious are therefore not interchangeable terms.

 

The expressions proper to the authors are kept: Bellarmine speaks of the manifest heretic; Badii and Wernz–Vidal of notorious and divulged heresy; Prümmer of certain and notorious heresy; Beste of manifest and notorious heresy; Vermeersch–Creusen and Coronata of notorious heresy; Regatillo of public notorious heresy. The mere circulation of a phrase does not demonstrate, by itself, that all the conditions aimed at by these authors are gathered.

 

8.5 Invalid election and subsequent loss of the pontificate

 

Paul IV is cited on heresy anterior to the election; Bellarmine and the canonists also examine the fall of a title-holder. One must establish separately the initial incapacity or the subsequent forfeiture. The formula “he has never been pope” is not equivalent to the formula “he has ceased to be pope”. The analyses of the titles of claimants during schisms must not erase this difference.

 

8.6 Common doctrine and degree of certainty

 

The dossier establishes the existence of an important theological current in favor of the loss by the law itself for manifest heresy, qualified as common or more common by several cited authors. This qualification, Prümmer’s reservations and the alternative opinions reported by Ryder are not identical to a unanimous dogmatic definition of all the modalities. The formula “all the authors have proved the same thing in the same manner” would exceed the testimonies gathered.

 

The essential argument remains intact: the supremacy of the pontiff does not imply that a person publicly separated from the faith can necessarily conserve the pontificate. The solution retained in this study is that of Bellarmine, as taken up by the authors favorable to the loss by the law itself. The precision of its conditions strengthens the demonstration by avoiding supporting it on a mere accusation, a moral fault or a badly identified text.

 

9 Prophetic texts relating to the crisis of the Church

 

The following testimonies concern a crisis of the faith, a Rome without pastor or a future restoration. They do not define the juridical mechanism of a loss of the pontifical office. The alleged antiquity, the existence of a publication and the supernatural origin are three distinct questions. The order adopted is that of the identifiable publications in the transmitted references, so as not to transform an ancient attribution into a certain dating.

 

9.1 The text attributed to Ridolpho Gelthier published by Lemoinne in 1855

 

This prophecy appeared in the Revue des Deux Mondes of 15 September 1855, under the pen of John Lemoinne, who gives in a note the reference “De Fluctibus misticæ navis, auctore Ridolpho Gelthier ; Augustæ, 1675”. The title means “Of the waves of the mystical ship”; Augustæ designates Augsburg. Here is the translation of the Latin text reproduced in this article:

 

“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, pestilences and earthquakes will devastate cities in great number. Rome will lose the scepter by the persecution of the false philosophers. The pope will become the captive of his subjects, the Church of God will be submitted to tribute and stripped of its temporal goods.

 

After a little time, there will be no more pope.

 

A prince of the aquilon (or of the north) will traverse Europe with a great army, he will overthrow the republics and exterminate all the rebels. His sword, held by God, will vigorously defend the Church of Christ, exalt the orthodox faith, and submit the empire of Mahomet. A new pastor, that of the end, called from the shore by a heavenly sign, will come in simplicity of heart and the science of Christ, and peace will be restored to the world.” (John Lemoinne, “La Fin du Monde et le révérend Dr Cumming”, Revue des Deux Mondes, 15 September 1855, vol. 11, p. 1315.)

 

Lemoinne furnishes a reference to a work attributed to Gelthier and dated 1675. The publication of the text in 1855 does not suffice to certify its prophetic origin.

 

9.2 The so-called Augustinian predictions published in 1870

 

“We so name them because they are extracted from the Library of Saint Augustine, at Rome. […]” (Recueil complet des prophéties les plus authentiques, passé, présent, futur, Lyons, P. N. Josserand, 1870, p. 59, note 1.)

 

“Toward 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, pestilence and earthquakes will devastate several cities.

 

Rome will lose the scepter as a result of the obsession of the pseudophilosophers.

 

The Pope will be led 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 expire.

 

A prince of the Aquilon will traverse all Europe with a great army; he will overthrow the republics and exterminate the rebels; his sword, moved by God, will energetically defend the Church of Christ. This sovereign will fight for the orthodox faith and will conquer the Mohammedan empire.” (The coming of the Great King.)

 

“A new pastor of the Church will come from a seacoast, 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 age.” (The coming of the great pope.)

 

(Recueil complet des prophéties les plus authentiques, passé, présent, futur, Lyons, P. N. Josserand, 1870, ch. 13, “Prédictions augustiniennes”, pp. 59–60.)

 

The qualifier Augustinian is explained by the collection from a library of Saint Augustine at Rome. It does not constitute an attribution of these predictions to Saint Augustine, Father of the Church. The rapprochements with the contemporary crisis remain interpretations of the text.

 

9.3 The prophecy attributed to Werdini in the collection of 1870

 

“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 toward the calends of November in 1279. […]” (Recueil complet des prophéties les plus authentiques, passé, présent, futur, 1870, p. 63, note 1.)

 

“I, abbé Werdini of Otranto, warned by my Guardian Angel of the approaching time of my death, have written on parchment the events that have been revealed to me and that will be accomplished at the opening of the sixth seal. […] This good Pastor guarded by the angels will repair many things. By his vigilance and solicitude altars will be raised, and destroyed churches will be restored. Then an agreeable warrior will come from a foreign country to contemplate the glory of this Pastor; and the latter will install him in a marvelous manner on the throne […] become vacant; he will crown him with the diadem […] and will ask his aid in his own government. Then, after a small number of years, this star will be extinguished […] and the mourning […] will be great […].” (Recueil complet des prophéties les plus authentiques, passé, présent, futur, Lyons, P. N. Josserand, 1870, ch. 15, “Prophétie werdinienne”, pp. 63–65.)

 

The collection attributes the text to an author of the thirteenth century.

 

9.4 Melanie Calvat and the secret published in 1879

 

“[…] A forerunner of the antichrist, with his troops of several nations, will fight against the true Christ, the only savior of the world. He will shed much blood, and will wish to annihilate the worship of God, in order to make himself regarded as a God. […] The seasons will be changed, the earth will produce only bad fruits. The stars will lose their regular movements; the moon will reflect only a feeble reddish light. Water and fire will give the globe of the earth convulsive movements and horrible earthquakes, which will swallow mountains and cities. […] Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the antichrist. The demons of the air with the antichrist will work great prodigies on the earth and in the airs, and men will pervert themselves more and more. […] God will have care of His faithful servants and of men of good will. The Gospel will be preached everywhere. All peoples, all nations will have knowledge of the truth […].” (Melanie Calvat, secret published in 1879, passages reproduced by Amédée Nicolas, Défense et explication du secret de Mélanie de la Salette, Nîmes, A. Peladan, 1880, pp. 121, 123–124 and 126.)

 

The cited text is attached to Melanie’s publication and to its reproduction by Amédée Nicolas in 1880. The supernatural authenticity of this redaction and the application of its expressions to a determined pontificate are not demonstrated by the sole bibliographical reference. The phrase on Rome belongs to the prophetic dossier, distinct from the preceding doctrinal arguments.

 

9.5 Marie Agnès Claire Steiner and the publications of 1881 and 1883

 

The cited hagiographical works present Marie-Agnès-Claire Steiner, born 29 August 1813, as favored with the gift of prophecy. They report notably, in the account of her revelations of 1843, a writing in which there was question “of demons come in great number upon the earth and working at the ruin of the faith”. References: R. P. de Reus, La servante de Dieu Marie-Agnès-Claire Steiner du côté de Jésus. Abrégé de sa vie, translation of Bishop Constans, 2nd ed., Paris, Librairie catholique internationale de l’Œuvre de Saint-Paul, 1883, pp. 1 and 78–81; Adrien Peladan, Dernier mot des prophéties, third and last part, Nîmes, at the author’s, 1881, pp. 103–104.

 

In 1845, the Blessed Virgin said to Mother Steiner, according to the account gathered by Adrien Peladan:

 

“If grace is not obtained by prayers, the time will come in which one will see the sword and death, and Rome will be without Pastor.” (Adrien Peladan, Dernier mot des prophéties, third and last part, 1881, p. 106.)

 

The dates of 1843 and 1845 belong to the accounts transmitted by these publications. Their application to a contemporary vacancy is a sedevacantist interpretation; it replaces neither the proof of a determined heresy nor the examination of the conditions of the forfeiture.

 

10 Sedevacantist application and conclusion

 

10.1 The general principle and the case of Paul VI

 

The application defended is the following: Paul VI lost the pontificate by his public heresy in 1964, linked to Lumen gentium, and the Apostolic See has been vacant since that rupture. This position constitutes the sedevacantist conclusion of the dossier.

 

The deduction requires two distinct elements: the principle of the loss of office in the conditions set forth; the demonstration that the acts and teachings of Paul VI realize these conditions. The present ensemble develops the first element. Preceding chapters furnish the integral examination of the propositions of Lumen gentium, of the dogmas to which they are contrary and of the alleged pertinacity. The date and the personal application can therefore be presented as demonstrated.

 

10.2 The declaration of Bishop Ngô Đình Thục

 

Bishop Ngô Đình Thục motivated his episcopal consecrations without the authorization of Rome by a declaration dated Munich, 25 February 1982, affirming that the Apostolic See was vacant because of heresies and that it belonged to him, “as a bishop, to assure the continuity of the Roman Catholic Church, with a view to the salvation of souls”. Declaration reported in the notification of 12 March 1983 of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, third paragraph.

 

The dossier invokes this declaration as an act of recognition of the vacancy and as the motive given by Bishop Thục for his action for the continuity of the Church.

 

10.3 Doctrinal conclusion

 

The ensemble gathered supports the thesis according to which a pope become manifestly heretical ceases, by the very fact, to be the visible head of the Church, because he has ceased to be a member of it. Its most direct expression is found in Bellarmine; Vacandard exposits its compatibility with the principle according to which the first See is judged by no one; several canonists take it up under the terms of public, manifest or notorious heresy.

 

The exact scope of this conclusion must be kept: the possibility of the case and its modalities have not received an identical formulation among all the cited authors. The pontifical testimonies, the conciliar discussions, the reasonings of the theologians and the prophetic accounts contribute in different ways to the dossier. The position of loss by the law itself can be defended without transforming each testimony into a dogmatic definition and without attributing to a source more than what it affirms.

 

11 List of sources

 

11.1 Studies of the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique and historical sources

 

Dublanchy, É., “Infaillibilité du pape”, section 2, in the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, under the direction of A. Vacant, E. Mangenot and É. Amann, vol. 7, second part, Paris, Letouzey et Ané, 1923, cols. 1714–1715. French.

 

Vacandard, É., “Déposition et dégradation des clercs”, section 6, “Déposition des papes”, in the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, vol. 4, first part, third printing, Paris, Letouzey et Ané, 1924, cols. 516–520; bibliography, cols. 520–521. French.

 

Vincent of Lérins, The Commonitorium of Vincentius of Lerins, ed. R. S. Moxon, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1915, ch. 2, pp. 10–11. Latin text.

 

Silveira, Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da, Considerações sobre o “Ordo Missae” de Paulo VI, 1970, part devoted to the hypothesis of a heretical pope, pp. 5, 18, 20, note 5, and 35–38. Portuguese.

 

Gratian, Decretum, in Corpus iuris canonici, ed. Emil Friedberg, vol. 1, Leipzig, Bernhard Tauchnitz, 1879, first part, distinction 40, c. 6, Si papa, col. 146; other passages cited in the text. Latin.

 

Gregory IX, Decretales, book 1, title 6, c. 4, Significasti; book 2, title 1, c. 13, Novit. Latin.

 

Innocent III, Sermones in consecratione pontificis maximi, sermon 2, Patrologia Latina, vol. 217, cols. 655–656; sermon 4, col. 670. Latin.

 

Ivo of Chartres, Decretum, 5, 23; Epistola 233, to Henry, abbot, Patrologia Latina, vol. 162, col. 236; Epistola 236, to John, archbishop of Lyons, cols. 238–241, especially cols. 240–241. Latin.

 

Schulte, Johann Friedrich von, Die Stellung der Concilien, Päpste und Bischöfe vom historischen und canonistischen Standpunkte und die päpstliche Constitution vom 18. Juli 1870. Mit den Quellenbelegen, Prague, F. Tempsky, 1871, pp. 188–205; appendix, pp. 253–268. German, with the Latin texts of the canonists.

 

Rufinus, Die Summa decretorum des Magister Rufinus, ed. Heinrich Singer, Paderborn, Ferdinand Schöningh, 1902, p. 46. Latin text; German introduction.

 

Summa Parisiensis; Summa Lipsiensis; John of Faenza, Summa; Huguccio, commentary on the Decree; Bernard of Pavia, Summa decretalium; Hostiensis, Summa aurea: Latin extracts published in Schulte, op. cit., appendix, pp. 255, 258, 259–264 and 268; Huguccio, no. 308, especially p. 263.

 

Fagnani, Prospero, Commentaria in primum librum Decretalium, cum disceptatione de grangiis, quæ in aliis editionibus desiderabatur; ac ipso textu suis locis apte disposito, Venice, Ex Typographia Balleoniana, 1729, book 1, title 6, c. 4, Significasti, no. 32, p. 223; nos. 65–66, p. 226; no. 70, p. 227. Latin.

 

Torquemada, Juan de, Summa de Ecclesia, Rome, Eucharius Silber, 1489, book 2, ch. 112; Nicholas Tudeschi, Commentaria in Decretales, Venice, 1617, vol. 1, book 1, title 4, c. 4, n. 3, p. 108; Thomas Netter, Doctrinale antiquitatum fidei Ecclesiae catholicae, Venice, Vincentius Valgrisius, 1571, vol. 1, book 2, art. 3, ch. 80, p. 397. References given by Dublanchy, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, vol. 7/2, col. 1715. Latin.

 

Paul IV, Cum ex apostolatus officio, 15 February 1559, § 1, in Pietro Gasparri, Codicis iuris canonici fontes, vol. 1, Rome, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1947, no. 94, p. 163; complete text, pp. 163–166. Latin.

 

Alphonsus Mary de Liguori, Du Pape et du Concile, ou doctrine complète de S. Alphonse de Liguori sur ce double sujet, treatises translated, classified and annotated by P. Jules Jacques, Paris, P. M. Laroche; Leipzig, L. A. Kittler; Tournai, Vve H. Casterman, 1869, first treatise, ch. 3, art. 1, p. 31; art. 2, pp. 63 and 78; second treatise, Defense of the supreme power of the Sovereign Pontiff against Justin Febronius, ch. 8, reply 6°, pp. 359–360. French translation.

 

McGovern, James J., The Life and Life-Work of Pope Leo XIII, 1903, ch. 18, pp. 236–241, especially pp. 239–241. English.

 

Zinelli, Federico, intervention of 5 July 1870, 83rd general congregation of the Vatican I council, in Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, vol. 52, ed. Louis Petit and Jean-Baptiste Martin, Arnhem–Leipzig, Société nouvelle d’édition de la collection Mansi, 1927, cols. 1100–1109, especially col. 1109. Latin.

 

Ngô Đình Thục, declaration of Munich, 25 February 1982, reported by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, notification of 12 March 1983, third paragraph. French text of the notification.

 

ANTONINUS OF FLORENCE, Summa theologica, third part, Strasbourg, Johann Grüninger, 1496, title 22, chapter 4, § 3.

 

BELLARMINE, Robert, Disputationes de controversiis christianae fidei adversus huius temporis haereticos, vol. 1, Prague, Wolfgang Wickhart, 1721, De Romano Pontifice, book 2, chapter 30, pp. 384–386.

 

CAJETAN, Thomas de Vio, De divina institutione pontificatus Romani pontificis (1521), ed. Friedrich Lauchert, Münster in Westfalen, Aschendorff, 1925, Corpus Catholicorum, 10, p. 83, cited by José Arturo Domínguez Asensio, “Infalibilidad y ‘determinatio de fide’ en la polémica antiluterana del Cardenal Cayetano”, Archivo Teológico Granadino, 44, 1981, p. 49, note 180.

 

CAJETAN, Thomas de Vio, Scripta theologica, volume 1, De comparatione auctoritatis Papae et Concilii cum apologia eiusdem tractatus, edition Vincentius M. Iacobus Pollet, Rome, Institutum Angelicum, 1936, chapters 19–20, pp. 124–127, notably nos. 274, 282–283. Latin.

 

DOMÍNGUEZ ASENSIO, José Arturo, “Infalibilidad y ‘determinatio de fide’ en la polémica antiluterana del Cardenal Cayetano”, Archivo Teológico Granadino, 44, 1981, pp. 5–61, especially p. 49, note 180.

 

NICOLAS, Amédée, Défense et explication du secret de Mélanie de la Salette, published in November 1879 by the shepherdess Melanie Calvat, Sister Mary of the Cross, with two letters of Bishop Sauveur-Louis Zola, bishop of Lecce, Nîmes, at M. A. Peladan’s, 1880, pp. 121, 123–124 and 126.

 

REUS, R. P. de, La servante de Dieu Marie-Agnès-Claire Steiner du côté de Jésus. Abrégé de sa vie, translated from the Italian and preceded by two prefaces by Bishop Constans, 2nd edition revised, corrected and enlarged according to the second Italian edition, Paris, Librairie catholique internationale de l’Œuvre de Saint-Paul, 1883, pp. 1 and 78–81.

 

PELADAN, Adrien, Dernier mot des prophéties, third and last part, Nîmes, at the author’s, 1881, “Prophéties de la Sœur Marie-Agnès-Claire Steiner”, pp. 103–113, especially p. 106.

 

LEMOINNE, John, “La Fin du Monde et le révérend Dr Cumming”, Revue des Deux Mondes, 2nd series of the new period, vol. 11, 15 September 1855, pp. 1307–1318, especially p. 1315 and its note.

 

Recueil complet des prophéties les plus authentiques, passé, présent, futur, Lyons, P. N. Josserand, 1870, ch. 13, “Prédictions augustiniennes”, pp. 59–60; ch. 15, “Prophétie werdinienne”, pp. 63–66.

 

11.2 Other doctrinal and canonical texts

 

Holy Scripture: Gospel according to Saint John, 3:18; epistle of Saint Paul to Titus, 3:10–11; scriptural references invoked by Innocent III and Bellarmine in the developments cited.

 

Vatican I council, dogmatic constitution Pastor aeternus, chapter 4. Latin and French translation.

 

Codex Iuris Canonici of 1917, canons 188, number 4; 1325, paragraph 2; 1556; 2197. Latin.

 

Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversy, trans. H. B. Mackey, 3rd ed., London, Burns & Oates; New York, Cincinnati and Chicago, Benziger Brothers, 1909, part 2, article 6, chapter 14, pp. 305–306.

 

Alphonsus de Liguori, Opere dogmatiche, unique volume, in Opere, volume 8, Turin, Giacinto Marietti, 1880; Verità della fede, part 3, chapter 8, no. 10, p. 720. Italian.

 

Cajetan, Thomas de Vio, Commentaria in Secundam Secundae, in Sancti Thomae Aquinatis, Opera omnia iussu impensaque Leonis XIII P. M. edita, vol. 8, Secunda secundae Summae Theologiae a quaestione 1 ad quaestionem 56, Rome, Ex Typographia Polyglotta S. C. de Propaganda Fide, 1895, q. 39, a. 1, no. 6, p. 308. Latin.

 

Charles Journet, L’Église du Verbe incarné, volume 2, pp. 839–840, cited by Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, Considerações sobre o “Ordo Missae” de Paulo VI, 1970, p. 36. French, transmitted in Portuguese translation.

 

Suárez, Francisco, Opera omnia, new edition by Charles Berton, vol. 12, Paris, Louis Vivès, 1858, De charitate, disp. 12, sect. 1, no. 2, pp. 733–734. Latin.

 

Torquemada, Juan de, Summa de Ecclesia, book 4, first part, ch. 11, fol. 369 verso, cited by Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, Considerações sobre o “Ordo Missae” de Paulo VI, 1970, p. 37. Text transmitted in Portuguese translation.

 

Joseph Wilhelm, “Heresy”, The Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7, New York, Robert Appleton Company, 1910. English.

 

Girolamo Savonarola, Letter to the Emperor, Latin text published by François-Tommy Perrens, Jérôme Savonarole d’après les documents originaux et avec des pièces justificatives en grande partie inédites, 3rd ed., Paris, Librairie de L. Hachette et Cie, 1859, appendix, piece 12, pp. 409–411, especially p. 410.

 

Joseph Fessler, The True and the False Infallibility of the Popes. A Controversial Reply to Dr. Schulte, New York, The Catholic Publication Society, 1875, pp. 89–90.

 

Louis Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, volume 1, 3rd ed., Prato, Giachetti, sons and associates, 1909, question 14, thesis 29, paragraphs 2–3, pp. 614–621, especially p. 617.

 

Matthaeus Conte a Coronata, Institutiones Iuris Canonici, volume 1, 3rd enlarged and corrected ed., Marietti, preliminaries and copyright dated 1947, nos. 312 and 316, pp. 366 and 372–373.

 

Caesar Badii, Institutiones Iuris Canonici (Florence: Libreria Editrice Fiorentina, 1921).

 

Dominic Prümmer, Manuale Iuris Canonici (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1927).

 

518. X. Wernz and P. Vidal, Ius Canonicum, volume 2, De personis, 3rd ed. revised by P. Aguirre, Rome, Gregorian University, 1943, no. 453, pp. 517–518.

 

Udalricus Beste, Introductio in Codicem, 3rd ed. (Collegeville: St John’s Abbey Press, 1946).

 

222. Vermeersch and J. Creusen, Epitome Iuris Canonici, volume 1, 4th ed., Mechlin–Rome, H. Dessain, 1929, no. 300, p. 222.

 

Eduardus F. Regatillo, Institutiones Iuris Canonici, 5th ed. (Santander: Sal Terrae, 1956).

 

Serapius Iragui, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Madrid: Ediciones Studium, 1959).

 

Henry Ignatius Dudley Ryder, Catholic Controversy. A Reply to Dr. Littledale’s “Plain Reasons”, 8th ed., London, Burns & Oates; New York, Cincinnati and Chicago, Benziger Brothers, n.d., part 1, section 7, subdivision 5, p. 30.

 

Henry Amans Ayrinhac, General Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law: General Norms (Can. 1–86), Ecclesiastical Persons in General (Can. 87–214), 1923, chapter “Loss of Ecclesiastical Offices”, section “Resignation” (can. 185–191), no. 341, p. 346. English.

 

Anthony Cekada, Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope, 1995 and 2006, appendix 1, pp. 7–11; appendix 2, p. 11.

 

16. Claeys Bouuaert, “Déposition”, section 5, “Sujet de la déposition”, in Raoul Naz (dir.), Dictionnaire de droit canonique, vol. 4, Paris, Letouzey et Ané, 1949, cols. 1158–1159, cited by Jean-Michel Gleize, “Si Papa”, Courrier de Rome, year 53, no. 621, May 2019, pp. 3–4, nos. 10–11, notes 15–16. French.

 

Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum, ed. Jean Garnier, Paris, widow of Edme Martin and Gabriel Martin, 1680, pp. 16–22, especially pp. 18 and 20; pp. 43–44.

 

11.3 Bibliography transmitted from Vacandard’s article

 

The inscription of a work does not mean that its author shares all the conclusions of the article nor that he constitutes an independent witness of the automatic loss of the pontificate.

 

Ballerini, De vi ac ratione primatus romanorum pontificum, in Migne, Theologiae cursus completus, vol. 3.

 

Barbosa, Collectanea doctorum in 5 lib. Decretalium, 3 in-fol., Lyons, 1656.

 

Bellarmine, De Romano pontifice.

 

Bellarmine, 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.

 

Prosper Fagnani, Commentaria in quinque libros Decretalium, 3 in-fol., Rome, 1661; Commentaria in primum librum Decretalium, Venice, Ex Typographia Balleoniana, 1729, especially 1, 6, chapter 4, nos. 32, 65–66 and 70, pp. 223, 226–227.

 

Ferraris, Prompta bibliotheca canonica, 8 in-4°, Rome, 1885 sq.

 

Jean Hardouin (ed.), Conciliorum collectio regia maxima: Acta conciliorum et epistolae decretales, ac constitutiones summorum pontificum, 11 tomes in 12 volumes in-fol., Paris, Imprimerie royale, 1714–1715.

 

Hefele, Histoire des conciles, trans. Leclercq, 1907-1908.

 

Paul Hinschius, System des katholischen Kirchenrechts, 6 volumes in-8°, Berlin, 1869–1897.

 

Paul Hinschius (ed.), Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianae et Capitula Angilramni, in-8°, Leipzig, 1863.

 

Kober, Die Suspension der Kirchendiener, in-8°, Tübingen, 1862.

 

Kober, 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. 7, col. 281 sq.

 

du Perron, “Réplique à la réponse du sérénissime roy de la Grande-Bretagne”, Paris, 1620.

 

Philipps, Kirchenrecht, 7 in-8°, Ratisbon, 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°, Ratisbon, 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.

 

Turmel, Histoire du dogme de la papauté, des origines à la fin du 4e siècle, 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.