The Six Causes of Loss of the Supreme Pontificate
according to canon law and scholastic theology
Table of contents
Introduction
- Death
- Abdication
2.1. Free
2.2. Without necessary acceptance
- Madness
3.1. Indeed, natural reason requires it
3.2. In the Church, this truth is confirmed
- Public Heresy
- Public Apostasy
- Public Schism
6.1. Canon law
6.2. Theology
6.3. Historical and hypothetical applications
- Conclusion
List of sources
Introduction
According to the certain doctrine of the Catholic Church, as taught before 1963, the papal pontificate, as the supreme office entrusted by Our Lord Jesus Christ to Saint Peter and his legitimate successors, is not indefectible in the person of the pope, but may cease for causes determined by divine and ecclesiastical law. These causes are founded on Thomistic logic, which requires conformity between the essence of the office and the conditions necessary for its exercise.
The six principal causes of loss of the pontificate are death, voluntary abdication, madness, public heresy, public apostasy and public schism. Pre-1962 canonical and theological doctrine unanimously admits death and resignation as certain causes of cessation of the pontificate. It teaches very commonly the cessation of the pontificate in the case of perpetual madness, public heresy, public apostasy and public schism. These last three therefore pertain to public defection from the Catholic faith, which entails an ipso facto loss of the office, without need of formal declaration, in accordance with canon law.
We shall examine each by distinguishing the natural causes (death and madness), the voluntary cause (abdication) and those incompatible with the faith (heresy, apostasy, schism).
- Death
The most evident, frequent and natural cause of loss of the pontificate is the death of the pope. According to divine law, the papal office is attached to the person elected, and it ceases with physical death, because the immortal soul cannot exercise visible authority without the body. The 1917 Code of Canon Law defines the supreme jurisdiction of the pope in canon 218, paragraphs 1–2. The cessation of this jurisdiction by death is expressly treated by Wernz–Vidal, Ius canonicum, volume II, De personis, 3rd edition, Rome, 1943, number 452, page 516, and by Coronata, Institutiones iuris canonici, volume I, 3rd edition, number 316, page 373.
Text of canon 218, paragraph 1, in Latin: « Romanus Pontifex, Beati Petri in primatu Successor, habet non solum primatum honoris, sed supremam et plenam potestatem iurisdictionis in universam Ecclesiam tum in rebus quae ad fidem et mores, tum in iis quae ad disciplinam et regimen Ecclesiae per totum orbem diffusae pertinent. »
Translation: “The Roman Pontiff, successor of blessed Peter in the primacy, possesses not only the primacy of honour, but the supreme and full power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, both in matters that concern faith and morals and in those that concern the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the whole world.”
This canon logically presupposes that death puts an end to this power, because no provision is made for a post-mortem exercise over the universal Church on earth. Since they are called “successors of Saint Peter”, the pontificate of Saint Peter did indeed cease. The counter-arguments of the modernists, who might invoke a mystical continuity, are refuted by Thomistic logic: the form (papal authority) does not subsist without the matter (the living person).
The strongest and undeniable argument is the history of the Church, which confirms this, with every interregnum following a papal death. The Church has each time recognised that there was no longer a pope and has proceeded to the election of a successor, according to the procedure in force at that time (in recent centuries by a conclave).
- Abdication
Abdication, or voluntary resignation, is a legitimate cause of loss of the pontificate, recognised by ecclesiastical law. It must be free, without constraint, and does not require the acceptance of the cardinals in order to be valid.
2.1. Free
Canon 185 states: Resignation caused by grave fear unjustly inflicted, or by deceit or by error touching the substance of the act, as well as resignation tainted by simony, is null by the law itself. This norm applies analogously to the Sovereign Pontiff.
2.2. Without necessary acceptance
This is expressly taught in canon 221 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. « Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex renuntiet, ad eiusdem renuntiationis validitatem non est necessaria Cardinalium aliorumve acceptatio. » If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, the validity of this resignation does not require the acceptance of the Cardinals or of anyone else.
This provision codifies traditional doctrine, as in the historical example of Saint Celestine V in 1294, who abdicated freely (Boniface VIII, Liber sextus decretalium, book I, title VII, De renuntiatione, unique chapter, Quoniam; James F. Loughlin, “Pope St. Celestine V”, The Catholic Encyclopedia, volume III, 1908). The Liber sextus reports the disposition of Celestine V: « Romanum Pontificem posse libere resignare », that is: “That the Roman Pontiff may freely resign.”
Note: although the pope’s resignation is effective from the expression of his will (without acceptance), the rule for other clerics (bishops, parish priests, etc.) is different. Their resignation requires the acceptance of the authority to whom it is addressed.
The counter-arguments of the schismatics, who might claim that abdication invalidates a subsequent pontificate, are refuted: the Church historically accepts such resignations without contestation, proving their validity.
Abdication may be tacit: We propose a separate chapter on tacit abdication, because it is a vast and delicate matter.
- Madness
By madness one loses one’s office, because one is or becomes radically incapable of ruling; this is a universal rule, which also applies in the Church and to a pope. He who has lost his head cannot be the head. This universal rule, rooted in natural law, applies without exception to human orders, including the Church (which is a society of human beings) and the Roman pontificate. This loss is not juridically formalised in the Code, but is deduced by analogy from other cases of madness in the Code and from natural law and the principle of incapacity of reason (defectus mentis).
3.1. Indeed, natural reason requires it
As Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches in his Summa Theologica (I-II, question 90, articles 1–2), government aims at the common good by a direction ordered to reason. A madman, deprived of the use of reason – which is proper to man as the image of God (Genesis 1, 26-27) – is radically incapable of governing, just as a blind man cannot guide others.
Royal or princely authority, which imitates divine providence, ceases when the prince becomes tyrannical or unfit, because the prince is instituted for the good of the people, not for his own glory. On the finality of government and its relation to divine providence, see Saint Thomas Aquinas, De regno ad regem Cypri, book I, chapter XV; on the conditions for the deposition of a tyrant, book I, chapter VII, in the text of the Turin edition, 1954.
If tyranny justifies resistance (as in Saint Thomas, who admits that subjects may, as a last resort and under several conditions, depose a tyrant in order to restore order), mental incapacity is still more grave: it is not a voluntary abuse, but an essential and total deprivation of the capacity to exercise the office.
Thus, in Roman civil law, which the Church has always integrated, the madman lost his civil rights and could not reign.
Justinian, Institutiones, book III, title XIX, De inutilibus stipulationibus: « Furiosus nullum negotium gerere potest, quia non intellegit quid agit. » Translation: “The madman can perform no legal act, because he does not understand what he is doing.” This universal rule applies to every office: a mad bishop cannot validly ordain or govern his diocese, just as a pope cannot exercise the magisterium or jurisdiction if he is deprived of reason.
3.2. In the Church, this truth is confirmed
The Catholic Encyclopedia classifies defect of reason among the irregularities that impede the reception or exercise of orders and mentions, in this regard, insanity and states that deprive one of the use of reason necessary for ecclesiastical functions (William Fanning, “Irregularity”, The Catholic Encyclopedia, volume VIII, New York, Robert Appleton Company, 1910).
Therefore, in order to be validly elected to the pontificate, the candidate must be fit to govern, which implies mental integrity.
Canon law stipulates:
Canon 984, 3°: Those irregular by defect are: … 3° Those who are or have been epileptic, deprived of reason or possessed by the devil; if they have become so after receiving orders and it is certain that they have ceased to be so, the Ordinary may permit those who are his subjects to exercise again the orders received.
If a pope were to lose this aptitude through madness, the office would become vacant ipso facto, because the pontificate requires the continuous exercise of the fullness of power (plenitudo potestatis), incompatible with incapacity. This is not a formal deposition, but an automatic cessation, in order to preserve the indefectibility of the Church promised by Our Lord (Matthew 16, 18).
In practice, in order to avoid abuses, canonical doctrine often requires an intervention of authority to establish the vacancy, even in cases of incapacity. Suárez contemplates a sufficient examination according to human prudence and a judgment on the fact: « si prudenter et humano modo sufficienter examinata res fuit, ac tandem judicata », that is: “if the matter has been examined with prudence and sufficiently according to the human manner, and finally judged” (De fide, disputation X, section VI, number 18, in Opera omnia, volume XII, Paris, Louis Vivès, 1858, page 322).
Claeys-Bouuaert teaches that the Pope who definitively loses the use of his mental faculties ceases to be Pope; and he explains: becoming incapable of posing a human act, the demented Pope would consequently be incapable of exercising his jurisdiction. The help of a vicar could not supply for it, given that infallibility and the primacy of jurisdiction cannot be delegated (Traité de droit canonique, volume I, page 376, cited by Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, Can the Pope Go Bad?, English translation by John Russell Spann, Catholic Research Institute, 2nd impression, 1999, page 61, note 2).
Almost all authors share this view, see for example: Wernz–Vidal, Ius canonicum, volume II, De personis, 3rd edition, Rome, 1943, number 452, page 516; Wilmers, De Christi Ecclesia libri sex, Ratisbon, 1897, number 148, page 258; Vermeersch–Creusen, Epitome iuris canonici, volume I, 4th edition, Malines–Rome, 1929, number 300, page 222. See also Chelodi, Ius de personis, number 155, page 245, and Cocchi, Commentarium in Codicem iuris canonici, volume III, number 155, page 25, cited by da Silveira, Can the Pope Go Bad?, page 61, note 3.
Indeed madness renders impossible the free human act required for every act of jurisdiction or magisterium. Now the pontificate requires the fullness of reason, image of divine Providence. On government related to divine providence, see Saint Thomas, De regno ad regem Cypri, book I, chapter XV. A demented pope could neither define infallibly nor govern, which would contradict the indefectibility of the Church promised by Our Lord (Mt 16, 18).
However, some, with Cappello, affirm that it is not possible to prove a certain and perpetual dementia: De Curia Romana, volume II, Rome, 1913, pages 13–15, cited by Coronata, Institutiones iuris canonici, volume I, 3rd edition, number 316, page 373, note 1.
On this point one may also consult: Coronata, Institutiones iuris canonici, volume I, 3rd edition, number 316, page 373; Sipos, Enchiridion iuris canonici, page 156, note 31, cited by da Silveira, Can the Pope Go Bad?, page 61, note 4.
Coronata expressly states: « Morti naturali aequiparanda est amentia certa et perpetua, si probari possit. » Translation: “A certain and perpetual dementia must be equated with natural death, if it can be proved” (Institutiones iuris canonici, volume I, 3rd edition, number 316, page 373). Suárez also teaches that perpetual dementia is equivalent to death as regards the use of reason and liberty, and therefore as regards the capacity for jurisdiction and pontifical dignity; he affirms, in this case, the privation of the office by divine law itself (De fide, disputation X, section VI, number 17, in Opera omnia, volume XII, 1858, page 321).
In another work, Cappello affirms that, in the concrete order, God will never permit a Pope to become mad: Summa iuris canonici, volume I, number 309, page 276, cited by da Silveira, Can the Pope Go Bad?, page 61, note 4.
But this last position is difficult to sustain today, given the progress of medicine and psychology. Present-day medicine can establish incurable madness.
As for the counter-arguments, which invoke papal infallibility in order to deny any incapacity, they contradict themselves. Infallibility, dogmatically defined by Vatican I (dogmatic constitution Pastor aeternus, 18 July 1870, chapter IV, final definition), protects only ex cathedra definitions on faith and morals; it does not prevent the pope from being personally unfit or from falling into private error, nor from becoming mad.
To say that madness would not affect the office would amount to denying that the Church is a visible and reasonable society, governed by human acts ordered to revelation – which is absurd and contrary to the reason of Saint Thomas.
The principle is not only true, but necessary for the safeguarding of the faith.
- Public Heresy
Public heresy is a certain cause of ipso facto loss of the pontificate, because a manifest heretic cannot be a member of the Church, still less its head.
This is taught by Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, book II, chapter XXX: « Nam inprimis, quod haereticus manifestus ipso facto sit depositus, probatur auctoritate et ratione. » Translation: “For, in the first place, that the manifest heretic is deposed by the very fact is proved by authority and by reason.” He concludes: « Haereticus igitur manifestus papa esse non potest. » Translation: “A manifest heretic therefore cannot be pope” (Disputationum de controversiis christianae fidei adversus hujus temporis haereticos, volume I, Naples, Josephus Giuliano, 1856, pages 418–419; see also the exposition of the fifth opinion, page 420).
This is codified in canon 188, 4° of the 1917 Code of Canon Law.
Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus: … 4° A fide catholica publice defecerit.
By tacit resignation admitted by the law itself, any offices become vacant by the law itself and without any declaration if the cleric: … 4° Has publicly defected from the Catholic faith.
Objection: This canon applies to ecclesiastical offices in general, not explicitly to the pontificate. Reply: by logical and doctrinal extension, most theologians apply it to it. Analogical application is admitted by the canonists.
According to the logic of Saint Thomas (Summa Theologica, IIa-IIae, question 39, article 1, ad 3), heresy breaks the unity of faith, separating from the Church. Suárez, in De fide, disputation X, section VI, numbers 3–6, admits that a heretical pope ceases to be a member of the Church as regards substance and form, while maintaining his quality of head as regards the office and influence until the declaratory sentence that he requires (Opera omnia, volume XII, Paris, Louis Vivès, 1858, pages 316–317).
Therefore according to the most common theological opinion, the loss of the office occurs ipso facto; some authors nevertheless admit that an ecclesiastical finding would be necessary in order to establish the fact juridically.
The counter-arguments of the schismatics, who deny this automatic loss in order to preserve their false popes, are refuted: they contradict the Fathers such as Saint Cyprian and Saint Jerome, who affirm that heretics exclude themselves. Saint Cyprian affirms of him who separates himself from the Church that he cannot retain the power nor the honour of a bishop: « episcopi nec potestatem potest habere nec honorem », that is: “he can have neither the power nor the honour of a bishop” (Letter 55 to Antonianus, paragraph 24, in Opera omnia, edition Wilhelm Hartel, CSEL, volume III, 2nd part, Vienna, 1871, pages 642–643). Saint Jerome writes: « haeretici autem in se ipsos sententiam ferunt, suo arbitrio de ecclesia recedentes », that is: “heretics, on the other hand, pronounce sentence against themselves, departing from the Church of their own choice” (Commentary on the Epistle to Titus, on Tit 3, 10–11, edition Federica Bucchi, CCSL, volume 77C, Turnhout, Brepols, 2003, page 70; see also Dialogus contra Luciferianos, paragraph 20). Indeed public heresy breaks the unity of faith (Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica, II-II, question 39, article 1, ad 3). The pope, as a member of the Church, must profess the entire faith; otherwise he is no longer in the Church and cannot be its head.
- Public Apostasy
Public apostasy, total abandonment of the Christian faith, likewise entails an ipso facto loss of the pontificate, because the apostate is no longer a Christian.
This falls under the same canon 188, 4°, as defection from the faith.
Saint Thomas teaches (Summa Theologica, IIa-IIae, question 12, article 1) that apostasy is a vice opposed to the faith.
It renders membership in the Church impossible, because one enters the Church by faith. Saint Thomas writes: « Sed homines in domum Dei, idest in Ecclesiam, intrant per fidem », that is: “Now men enter the house of God, that is the Church, by faith” (Summa Theologica, II-II, question 10, article 8, sed contra). Indeed the priest questions the catechumen (the baptizandus) at the beginning of the rite of baptism of adults, before the exorcisms and baptism properly so called (Rituale Romanum, title II, chapter IV, Ordo baptismi adultorum, number 5). The priest asks: Quid petis ab Ecclesia Dei? (What do you ask of the Church of God?). The catechumen then replies: Fidem! (Faith!).
Apostasy is graver than heresy. Saint Thomas speaks indeed of those who abandon the faith totally: « vel etiam totaliter a fide recedendo, sicut apostatae », that is: “or even by withdrawing totally from the faith, as apostates” (Summa Theologica, II-II, question 10, article 9, corpus; see also question 12, article 1). Apostasy is the total abandonment of the faith. Whereas heresy is only the abandonment of one or a few truths of the deposit of faith. Hence: if public heresy entails the loss of the pontificate according to the common opinion, a fortiori (all the more) public apostasy would also entail it.
The counter-arguments of the heretics, who minimise apostasy in order to justify ecumenical compromises, are refuted by the fixed doctrine: the Church does not tolerate apostates in her midst.
- Public Schism
6.1. Canon law
Public schism, refusal of obedience to legitimate authority or rupture of unity, likewise causes the loss of the pontificate if it is manifest, because it is equivalent to a defection (canon 188, 4°).
6.2. Theology
Saint Thomas defines schism: « Et ideo proprie schismatici dicuntur qui propria sponte et intentione se ab unitate Ecclesiae separant. » (Summa Theologiae, II-II, question 39, article 1, corpus) Translation: “And therefore those are properly called schismatics who of their own will and intention separate themselves from the unity of the Church.”
Coronata expounds the same doctrine in canonical language, taking up canon 1325, paragraph 2: « si denique subesse renuit Summo Pontifici aut cum membris Ecclesiae ei subiectis communicare recusat, schismaticus est. » Translation: “If, finally, he refuses to be subject to the Sovereign Pontiff or refuses to communicate with the members of the Church subject to him, he is a schismatic” (Institutiones iuris canonici, volume II, De rebus, 3rd edition, number 911, pages 247–249).
Hence, if a pope himself refused the constitutive principles of ecclesial unity, either by rejecting the divine constitution of the Church, or by voluntarily breaking communion with those who remain united to him according to that same constitution, the question of his permanence as a member of the Church would then arise.
Now, according to the classical principle recalled by Saint Robert Bellarmine: « non potest esse caput id quod non est membrum » (De Romano Pontifice, book II, chapter XXX, in Disputationum de controversiis christianae fidei, volume I, Naples, 1856, page 418). Translation: “That which is not a member cannot be the head.”
A man who ceased to belong to the visible body of the Church could therefore no longer be its visible head. That is why many theologians apply to manifest schism the same principles as to manifest heresy.
6.3. Historical and hypothetical applications
Suárez contemplates that a pope could become schismatic by refusing the union that he must maintain with the entire body of the Church; he gives notably the examples of an attempt to excommunicate the whole Church or to overthrow all the ecclesiastical ceremonies established by apostolic tradition (De caritate, disputation XII, section I, number 2, in Opera omnia, volume XII, Paris, Louis Vivès, 1858, pages 733–734; see also Juan de Torquemada, Summa de Ecclesia, book IV, first part, chapter XI).
Declaration of a doctrine contrary to defined teachings: If the pope proclaimed that the dogma of papal infallibility, defined by the First Vatican Council, is not obligatory, and convened a purely “pastoral” council, he would create a doctrinal division that would push faithful and bishops to break communion with him.
Rejection of the authority of the pope or of the bishops: A pope who deposits his tiara, sells it at auction and in the presence of declared schismatics (as Paul VI), and would announce that the bishops are no longer bound to submit to the primacy of Rome, or that they must abandon the decisions of the Synod of bishops of a province of the Church, would create a fracture between the Holy See and certain bishops.
Establishment of a “new” liturgy or rite excluding existing rites: If the pope imposed a new liturgical rite (a sort of “novus ordo”) while prohibiting the celebration of the Latin rite in force for centuries (as Paul VI), he would provoke the rupture of liturgical communion with those who refuse this change.
Massive excommunication of clerics or faithful for doctrinal disagreement: Ordering the automatic excommunication of all bishops who contest a papal decision, without offering a path of reconciliation, would be equivalent to “refusing submission to the jurisdiction of the pope”, which constitutes a schismatic act.
Creation of a “parallel Church”: A pope who, under pretext of reforming the Church, would establish a distinct juridical structure, with its own canons and its own magisterium (the so-called “international floating dioceses”), and invite the faithful to adhere to it, would reproduce the phenomenon of antipopes and historical schisms.
Negation of communion with the Eastern provinces: If he declared that the Eastern Catholic provinces are no longer in communion with Rome, for the simple reason that they do not have the Latin rite, he breaks the visible unity of the universal Church.
Modification of canon law without consultation: Promulgating a new canon law that annuls the obligations of communion with the Holy See, or that renders obligatory the rejection of certain magisterial teachings, would be a violation of the principle that all the faithful are bound to observe the legitimate constitutions and decrees of the Church.
These scenarios illustrate how, by their words or their acts, popes could engender a schism: they attack the unity of faith, of charity and of jurisdiction that characterises the Catholic Church.
- Conclusion
These causes guarantee the divine protection of the Church, because God does not permit an incapable person, or a heretic, apostate or schismatic, to reign validly.
List of sources
- Sacred Scripture: Genesis 1, 26–27; Gospel according to Saint Matthew 16, 18.
- 1917 Code of Canon Law, Codex iuris canonici: canons 185; 188, 4°; 218, paragraphs 1–2; 221; 984, 3°; 1325, paragraph 2. Original Latin text.
- First Vatican Council, dogmatic constitution Pastor aeternus, 18 July 1870, chapter IV, definition of the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. Original Latin text.
- Boniface VIII, Liber sextus decretalium, book I, title VII, De renuntiatione, unique chapter, Quoniam. Original Latin text.
- Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae: I-II, question 90, articles 1–2; II-II, question 10, article 8, sed contra, and article 9, corpus; question 12, article 1; question 39, article 1, corpus and ad 3. Original Latin text.
- Thomas Aquinas, De regno ad regem Cypri, text of the Turin edition, 1954, book I, chapters VII and XV. Original Latin text.
- Justinian, Institutiones, book III, title XIX, De inutilibus stipulationibus. Original Latin text.
- Robert Bellarmine, Disputationum Roberti Bellarmini de controversiis christianae fidei adversus hujus temporis haereticos, volume I, first Neapolitan edition following the Venetian edition of 1721, Naples, Josephus Giuliano, 1856; De Romano Pontifice, book II, chapter XXX, pages 418–420. Original Latin text.
- Francisco Suárez, Opera omnia, edition Charles Berton, volume XII, Paris, Louis Vivès, 1858; De fide, disputation X, section VI, numbers 3–6, pages 316–317, and numbers 17–18, pages 321–322; De caritate, disputation XII, section I, number 2, pages 733–734. Original Latin text.
- Cyprian, S. Thasci Caecili Cypriani Opera omnia, edition Wilhelm Hartel, Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, volume III, second part, Vienna, C. Gerold, 1871; letter 55 to Antonianus, paragraph 24, pages 642–643. Original Latin text.
- Jerome, Commentarii in epistulas Pauli apostoli ad Titum et ad Philemonem, edition Federica Bucchi, Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, volume 77C, Turnhout, Brepols, 2003; commentary on Titus 3, 10–11, page 70. Original Latin text.
- Jerome, Dialogus contra Luciferianos, paragraph 20, in Patrologia Latina, volume XXIII, Paris, 1845. Original Latin text.
- Juan de Torquemada, Summa de Ecclesia, book IV, first part, chapter XI. Original Latin text.
- Wernz–Vidal, Ius canonicum ad Codicis normam exactum, volume II, De personis, 3rd edition, revised by Filippo Aguirre, Rome, Pontifical Gregorian University, 1943, number 452, page 516. Original Latin text.
- Matthaeus a Coronata, Institutiones iuris canonici ad usum utriusque cleri et scholarum, 3rd edition, Marietti; volume I, number 316, page 373, notably note 1; volume II, De rebus, number 911, pages 247–249. Original Latin text.
- Vermeersch–Creusen, Epitome iuris canonici, volume I, books I and II of the Code, 4th edition, Malines–Rome, H. Dessain, 1929, number 300, page 222. Original Latin text.
- Guilelmus Wilmers, De Christi Ecclesia libri sex, Ratisbon, Friedrich Pustet, 1897, number 148, page 258. Original Latin text.
- Rituale Romanum, Tours, Mame, title II, chapter IV, Ordo baptismi adultorum, number 5, page 24. Original Latin text.
- William Fanning, “Irregularity”, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, volume VIII, New York, Robert Appleton Company, 1910. Original English text.
- James F. Loughlin, “Pope St. Celestine V”, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, volume III, New York, Robert Appleton Company, 1908. Original English text.
- Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, Can the Pope Go Bad? A Call for the Resumption of a Debate Not Taken Seriously Since the 17th Century, translation from Portuguese into English by John Russell Spann, Greenacres, Washington, Catholic Research Institute, 2nd impression, September 1999, page 61, notes 2–4. Translated title: Can the Pope Become Bad? A Call to Resume a Debate No Longer Taken Seriously Since the Seventeenth Century.
- Claeys-Bouuaert, Traité de droit canonique, volume I, page 376, cited by da Silveira, Can the Pope Go Bad?, page 61, note 2. French work, passage transmitted in an English translation.
- Chelodi, Ius de personis, number 155, page 245, cited by da Silveira, Can the Pope Go Bad?, page 61, note 3. Latin work.
- Cocchi, Commentarium in Codicem iuris canonici, volume III, number 155, page 25, cited by da Silveira, Can the Pope Go Bad?, page 61, note 3. Latin work.
- Sipos, Enchiridion iuris canonici, page 156, note 31, cited by da Silveira, Can the Pope Go Bad?, page 61, note 4. Latin work.
- Felice Maria Cappello, De Curia Romana, volume II, Rome, 1913, pages 13–15, cited by Coronata, Institutiones iuris canonici, volume I, 3rd edition, number 316, page 373, note 1. Latin work.
- Felice Maria Cappello, Summa iuris canonici, volume I, number 309, page 276, cited by da Silveira, Can the Pope Go Bad?, page 61, note 4. Latin work.