16 Heretical Pope Is Presumed to Be Formal Heretic

A Heretical Pope Is Presumed to Be a Formal Heretic

Theological and Canonical Study

The traditional distinction between material heresy and formal heresy
Invincible ignorance in the simple faithful
The public doctor of the faith: an objectively different situation
Moral doctrine on the species of ignorance
Bellarmine and the manifest heretic
Suárez and the doctrinal responsibility of pastors
Billot and notorious heresy
Paul IV and the meaning of ipso facto
The internal forum and the external forum
Pertinacity and the public sin of heresy
Distinction between the moral and the canonical aspects
Doctrinal conclusions
General conclusion
Important remark on Archbishop Lefebvre

Sources

1. The traditional distinction between material heresy and formal heresy

The distinction taught by Saint Thomas Aquinas may be summarized thus:

Ad haeresim duo requiruntur : primo quidem corruptio fidei ; secundo autem pertinacia.

Two elements are required for heresy: first the corruption of the faith; then pertinacity.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, II-II, q. 11, a. 1 and a. 2, ad 3; Opera omnia, Leonine edition, t. VIII, Rome, Ex Typographia Polyglotta S. C. de Propaganda Fide, 1895, p. 97–99.

Material heresy designates objective adherence to a proposition contrary to the faith without the subjective fault of pertinacity. Formal heresy implies, besides the objective error, the voluntary refusal to submit to the doctrinal authority of the Church after sufficient knowledge of the obligation to believe. This distinction is unanimously admitted by scholastic theology.

2. Invincible ignorance in the simple faithful

The ordinary faithful receives no official mission to teach. Theologians therefore recognize that he may adhere objectively to a heretical error through invincible ignorance. In that case he may remain interiorly united to the soul of the Church by sanctifying grace, while being exteriorly separated from the visible body if he publicly professes the error.

Mgr Gerardus Van Noort explicitly admits this possibility for public material heretics. Dogmatic Theology, vol. II, Christ’s Church, 1959, n. 150g, p. 226–227, and n. 153, p. 241–242. Cardinal Billot and Cardinal Charles Journet develop the same doctrine at length, carefully distinguishing the visible order (body) and the invisible order (soul) of the Church. Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, t. I, 3rd ed., 1909, thesis XI, p. 292–293; Journet, Le Traité de l’Église, digital transcription, chapters VI and VIII, p. 144–147 and 204–206 of the PDF.

3. The public doctor of the faith: an objectively different situation

The bishop, the priest charged with teaching and, a fortiori, the Roman Pontiff are not simple faithful. They are constituted public doctors. The Code of 1917 recalls:

Episcopi quoque, licet singuli vel etiam in Conciliis particularibus congregati infallibilitate docendi non polleant, fidelium tamen suis curis commissorum, sub auctoritate Romani Pontificis, veri doctores seu magistri sunt.

The bishops also, although, taken individually or even gathered in particular councils, they do not enjoy infallibility in teaching, are nevertheless, under the authority of the Roman Pontiff, the true doctors or masters of the faithful committed to their care.

Codex iuris canonici (1917), can. 1326, in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. IX, second part, Rome, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1917, p. 257.

Their office carries a grave obligation: to know Catholic doctrine, to defend it, to transmit it faithfully, to refute errors. Ignorance concerning the truths of which they are precisely the guardians therefore appears hardly reconcilable with the duties proper to their charge.

4. Moral doctrine on the species of ignorance

Moral theology distinguishes invincible ignorance, vincible ignorance, affected ignorance, crass or supine ignorance. The doctrine of Saint Alphonsus Liguori may be summarized thus:

Ignorantia affectata non excusat a peccato.

Affected ignorance does not excuse from sin.

Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Theologia moralis, editio nova, ed. Leonardus Gaudé, t. I, Rome, Ex Typographia Vaticana, 1905, photomechanical reprint of 1953, book I, treatise II, chapter IV, doubt I, nos. 168–171, p. 146–148.

The office of doctor imposes precisely the grave obligation of acquiring the necessary knowledge. An alleged ignorance under these conditions therefore appears hardly invincible.

5. Bellarmine and the manifest heretic

Saint Robert Bellarmine writes:

Est ergo quinta opinio vera, papam haereticum manifestum per se desinere esse papam et caput, sicut per se desinit esse christianus et membrum corporis Ecclesiae; quare, ab Ecclesia posse eum judicari et puniri.

The fifth opinion is therefore true: a manifestly heretical pope ceases by himself to be pope and head, just as he ceases by himself to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; wherefore the Church can judge and punish him.

Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, book II, chapter XXX, in the Disputationes, t. I, first Neapolitan edition, Naples, Josephus Giuliano, p. 420.

Bellarmine does not treat directly of the psychology of invincible ignorance in clerics. However, his reasoning presupposes an exterior heresy sufficiently manifest to produce its juridical effects. He requires neither a constitutive deposing sentence nor a subsequent inquiry into the internal conscience of the person concerned. Manifest heresy suffices in the external forum.

6. Suárez and the doctrinal responsibility of pastors

Francisco Suárez insists on the particular responsibility of pastors and public doctors in the conservation of the faith. Teaching authority implies an adequate knowledge of the revealed truths. A public profession of error in an official doctor therefore constitutes a particularly grave indication of pertinacity. De fide, disputatio XIII, sectio VI, nos. 5–7, Opera omnia, t. XII, Paris, Louis Vivès, 1858, p. 380–381; Defensio fidei, Coimbra, 1613, book III, chapter VI, n. 15, p. 249–250, and chapter XXIX, n. 11, p. 366.

7. Billot and notorious heresy

Cardinal Billot teaches that exterior and notorious heresy separates from the visible body of the Church.

Louis Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, t. I, 3rd edition, Prato, Giachetti, Filii et Soc., 1909, question XIV, thesis XXIX, p. 609–621, especially p. 617; see also question VII, thesis XI, p. 292–293.

Visible membership presupposes the external profession of the Catholic faith. In a public doctor, the invocation of invincible ignorance appears morally scarcely sustainable and tends to amount to affected, crass, or gravely negligent ignorance.

8. Paul IV and the meaning of ipso facto

The bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio (15 February 1559) declares:

si ullo unquam tempore apparuerit aliquem Episcopum […] seu etiam Romanum Pontificem ante eius promotionem, vel in Cardinalem, seu Romanum Pontificem assumptionem a fide Catholica deviasse, aut in aliquam haeresim incidisse, promotio, seu assumptio de eo […] facta, nulla, irrita, et inanis existat

if it should ever appear that a bishop […] or even the Roman Pontiff, before his promotion or his elevation to the cardinalate or to the Roman pontificate, has deviated from the Catholic faith or has fallen into some heresy, the promotion or elevation of that man […] shall be null, void and of no effect.

The bull adds that these effects occur eo ipso absque aliqua desuper facienda declaratione, by the very fact, without any declaration having to be made on the subject. It uses several times the expression eo ipso, by the very fact. Paul IV does not develop an explicit theory of material and formal heresy. However, his legislation presupposes that a public deviation from the faith in those who occupy the highest ecclesiastical offices suffices to bring about immediately the juridical effects provided. No psychological inquiry into a possible invincible ignorance is envisaged.

9. The internal forum and the external forum

An essential distinction must be maintained. In the internal forum, God alone knows with certainty the subjective culpability. An absolutely exceptional invincible ignorance remains conceivable in theory. In the external forum, the Church judges according to public facts. The persistent, public and notorious profession of a heresy by an official doctor normally constitutes a morally sufficient proof of heretical formalism for external juridical effects. A heretic only in the internal forum indeed commits the sin of heresy but does not lose the papacy. Only public heresy entails the loss of office.

10. Pertinacity and the public sin of heresy

It is fitting here to integrate an important canonical precision concerning pertinacity. Certain authors have raised the following objection: No one can become a true heretic unless the authority of the Church first warns or admonishes him that he is rejecting a dogma. Only after that does he have the pertinacity required for heresy. No one has addressed warnings to the post-conciliar popes concerning their errors, therefore they are not pertinacious. Thus they cannot be true heretics.

11. Distinction between the moral and the canonical aspects

This argument confuses a distinction that canonists make between two aspects of heresy: moral, heresy as a sin against the divine law, and canonical, heresy as a delict against canonical law. The moral/canonical distinction is easy to grasp by applying it to abortion. There are two aspects under which we can consider abortion: moral, a sin against the fifth commandment which entails the loss of sanctifying grace, and canonical, a delict against canon 2350 § 1 of the Code of Canon Law which entails automatic excommunication.

In the case of heresy, the warnings intervene only for the canonical delict of heresy. They are not required as a condition for committing the sin of heresy against the divine law. The canonist Michel establishes the clear distinction for us: “It must be observed, with Cajetan, In IIam IIae, q. XI, a. 2, and Suarez, loc. cit., n. 8, that this pertinacity does not necessarily include a long obstinacy on the part of the heretic and monitions on the part of the Church. The condition of the sin of heresy is one thing, that of the delict, punishable by the canonical laws, is another.” A. Michel, “Hérésie. Hérétique”, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, t. VI, second part, Paris, Letouzey et Ané, col. 2222.

It is the public sin of heresy of a pope, in this sense, that strips him of the authority of Christ. The canonist Coronata writes: “If however the case occurs, he [the Roman Pontiff] falls from his office by divine law, without any sentence, even a declaratory one.” Institutiones iuris canonici, vol. I, Turin, Marietti, 1928, n. 316, IV, 2°, c), p. 367.

12. Doctrinal conclusions

First conclusion. It is not demonstrated with absolute certainty that a cleric can never, in any imaginable case, be a purely material heretic.

Second conclusion. Classical theology establishes an extremely strong moral presumption according to which public doctors do not enjoy, in the external forum, the presumption of invincible ignorance recognized for the simple faithful.

Third conclusion. The public, persistent and notorious profession of an error contrary to a dogma constitutes normally, in a public doctor, a morally sufficient proof of heretical formalism.

Fourth conclusion. This presumption clarifies the use of the expressions eo ipso and absque aliqua desuper facienda declaratione in Cum ex Apostolatus Officio and furnishes one of the doctrinal foundations of the classical theses relative to the loss of office by manifest heresy.

13. General conclusion

The theological and canonical tradition prior to 1962 does not permit one to affirm as an absolute certainty the impossibility of a purely material heresy in a cleric. It teaches nevertheless with great force that a public doctor of the faith, by reason of the obligations attached to his office, cannot be assimilated to the simple faithful as regards the presumption of invincible ignorance. In the external order, the public and persistent profession of a heresy is held to be a morally sufficient sign of heretical formalism, justifying the juridical consequences provided by the canonical tradition. Thus is reconciled the scholastic distinction between material and formal heresy with the affirmations of Paul IV, of Bellarmine and of the great theologians of the post-Tridentine period.

This presumption takes on a particular actuality in the present crisis of the Church, where the vacancy of the Apostolic See since the public heresy of Paul VI in 1964 imposes on the faithful the recognition of the manifest facts according to the external forum, without claiming to sound the internal consciences which God alone judges with certainty.

14. Important remark on Archbishop Lefebvre

This study contrasts with the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, who affirmed in the 1980s that a pope could indeed be heretical, but not formally; only materially. According to him, a heretical pope therefore remained a member of the Church, since only formal heresy excludes someone from the Church.

Now, ecclesiastical Tradition teaches the contrary. Archbishop Lefebvre moreover recognized in private that Paul VI was outside the Church, which implies that he considered him a formal heretic.

List of principal sources

Thomas Aquinas, Opera omnia iussu impensaque Leonis XIII P. M. edita, t. VIII, Secunda secundae Summae theologiae a quaestione I ad quaestionem LVI, Rome, Ex Typographia Polyglotta S. C. de Propaganda Fide, 1895, q. 11, a. 1, p. 97–98, and a. 2, ad 3, p. 99. Original Latin text.

Codex iuris canonici Pii X Pontificis Maximi iussu digestus, Benedicti Papae XV auctoritate promulgatus, in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. IX, second part, Rome, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1917. Can. 1326, p. 257; can. 2200 § 2, p. 413; can. 2314 § 1, p. 438; can. 2350 § 1, p. 445. Original Latin text.

Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, book II, chapter XXX, in Disputationum Roberti Bellarmini […] de controversiis christianae fidei adversus hujus temporis haereticos, t. I, editio prima neapolitana juxta Venetam anni MDCCXXI, Naples, Josephus Giuliano, p. 418–420. Original Latin text.

Louis Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi sive continuatio theologiae de Verbo incarnato, t. I, De credibilitate Ecclesiae et de intima ejus constitutione, 3rd edition, Prato, Ex Officina Libraria Giachetti, Filii et Soc., 1909, question VII, thesis XI, p. 292–293; question XIV, thesis XXIX, p. 609–621, especially p. 617. Original Latin text.

Paul IV, constitution Cum ex apostolatus officio, 15 February 1559, in Pietro Gasparri, ed., Codicis Iuris Canonici Fontes, vol. I, Concilia generalia — Romani Pontifices usque ad annum 1745, nos. 1–364, Rome, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1926, document n. 94, p. 163–166, especially § 6, p. 166. Original Latin text.

Francisco Suárez, Opera omnia, ed. Charles Berton, t. XII, Paris, Louis Vivès, 1858, De fide, disputatio XIII, sectio VI, nos. 5–7, p. 380–381; disputatio XIX, sectio III, nos. 17–19, p. 476. Francisco Suárez, Defensio fidei catholicae et apostolicae adversus Anglicanae sectae errores, cum responsione ad Apologiam pro iuramento fidelitatis et Praefationem monitoriam Serenissimi Iacobi Angliae Regis, Coimbra, apud Didacum Gomez de Loureyro Academiae Typographum, 1613, book III, chapter VI, n. 15, p. 249–250; chapter XVIII, n. 12, p. 312–313; chapter XXIX, n. 11, p. 366. Original Latin texts.

Gerardus Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, vol. II, Christ’s Church, translation and revision by John J. Castelot and William R. Murphy, Westminster, Maryland, The Newman Press, second impression, July 1959, n. 150g, p. 226–227; n. 153, p. 241–242; n. 156, p. 245–246. English text translated and revised from the Latin.

Charles Journet, Le Traité de l’Église, digital transcription, chapter VI, I, 1, p. 144–147 of the PDF; chapter VIII, II, 1, p. 204–206; chapter IX, p. 265 and 275–276. French text.

Michel, “Hérésie. Hérétique”, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique contenant l’exposé des doctrines de la théologie catholique, leurs preuves et leur histoire, t. VI, second part, Paris, Librairie Letouzey et Ané, col. 2222–2223; signature col. 2257. Original French text.

Matthaeus Conte a Coronata, Institutiones iuris canonici ad usum utriusque cleri et scholarum, vol. I, Normae generales — De Clericis — De Religiosis — De Laicis, Turin, Marietti, 1928, book II, first part, section II, title VII, chapter I, n. 316, IV, 2°, c), p. 367. Original Latin text.

Other classical authors: Cajetan, John of Saint Thomas, Wernz-Vidal (according to their respective treatises cited in the tradition).

Marcel Lefebvre, “Après les ralliements sonnera l’heure de vérité”, Fideliter, n. 68, March-April 1989, according to the republication of La Porte Latine of 16 July 2021, subheading “Le Bon Dieu peut convertir le Pape”.