The Six Causes of Loss of the Supreme Pontificate
according to Canon Law and Scholastic Theology
Table of Contents
Introduction
I. Death
II. Abdication
III. Madness
IV. Public Heresy
V. Public Apostasy
VI. Public Schism
VII. Conclusion
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 can 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.
As Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches in his Summa Theologica (IIa-IIae, q. 39), the head of a body cannot subsist if it is separated from the body itself (“schism is a special sin because it aims to separate from the unity of the Church”); likewise, the pope, the visible head of the Church, loses his office if circumstances render him incompatible with the unity of faith, of the Church, or the legitimate exercise of authority.
The six principal causes of loss of the pontificate are death, voluntary abdication, madness, public heresy, public apostasy, and public schism.
The last three pertain to public defection from the Catholic faith, which entails an ipso facto loss of the office, without need of formal declaration, in conformity with canon law.
We shall examine each one, distinguishing the natural causes (death and madness), the voluntary one (abdication), and those incompatible with the faith (heresy, apostasy, schism).
I. 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 elected person, and it ceases with physical death, for the immortal soul cannot exercise visible authority without the body.
The Code of Canon Law of 1917, which codifies traditional doctrine, implies this implicitly in Canon 218, which defines the supreme jurisdiction of the pope as personal and ordinary, but limited to his earthly life.
Text of Canon 218 (Latin):
“Romanus Pontifex, Beati Petri successor, habet non solum primatum, sed supremam et plenam potestatem iurisdictionis in universam Ecclesiam tam in rebus fidei et morum quam in iis quae ad disciplinam et regimen Ecclesiae per totum orbem pertinent.”
“The Roman Pontiff, successor of Blessed Peter, has not only primacy, but supreme and full power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, both in matters of faith and morals and in those pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the entire world.”
This canon logically presupposes that death ends this power, for 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 itself certainly ceased.
The counter-arguments of 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 acknowledged that there was no longer a pope and proceeded to the election of a successor, according to the procedure in force at the time (in recent centuries, by conclave).
II. Abdication
Abdication, or voluntary renunciation, is a legitimate cause of loss of the pontificate, recognized by ecclesiastical law. It must be free, without constraint, and does not require the acceptance of the cardinals to be valid.
Free:
Canon 185 states: “Renunciation caused by grave fear unjustly provoked, or by fraud, or by substantial error, as well as renunciation tainted by simony, are null by law itself.”
This applies analogously to the papacy.
Without necessary acceptance:
This is expressly taught in Canon 221 of the Code of Canon Law of 1917.
“Si contingat Romanum Pontificem renuntiare, ad eiusdem renuntiationis validitatem non est necessaria Cardinalium aliorumve acceptatio.”
“If it happens that the Roman Pontiff renounces his office, the validity of this renunciation does not require the acceptance of the Cardinals or anyone else.”
This provision codifies traditional doctrine, as in the historical example of Saint Celestine V in 1294, who abdicated freely.
Note: although the pope’s renunciation is effective from the expression of his will (without acceptance), the rule for other clerics (bishops, parish priests, etc.) is different. Their renunciation requires acceptance by the relevant authority.
The counter-arguments of schismatics, who might claim that an invalid abdication invalidates a subsequent pontificate, are refuted: the Church has historically accepted such renunciations without contestation, proving their validity.
Abdication can be tacit:
We propose a separate chapter on tacit abdication, as it is a vast and delicate matter.
III. Madness
By madness one loses one’s office, for one is or becomes radically incapable of governing; this is a universal rule that applies also in the Church and to a Roman pontiff.
“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 humans) and the Roman pontificate.
This loss is not juridically formalized in the Code, but deduced by analogy from other cases of madness in the Code and from natural law and the principle of incapacity of reason (defectus mentis).
Indeed, natural reason requires it.
As Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches in his Summa Theologica (I-II, qq. 90 and following), government aims at the common good through 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.
Saint Thomas, the Angel of the School, affirms that royal or princely authority, which imitates divine providence, ceases when the prince becomes tyrannical or unfit, for the prince is instituted for the good of the people, not for his own glory (De Regno, I, 15).
If tyranny justifies resistance (as in Saint Thomas, who admits that subjects may, in last resort, depose a tyrant to restore order), mental incapacity is even graver: it is not a voluntary abuse, but an essential and total privation 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, Institutions, Book 1, Title 23, paragraph 5: “Furiosi nihil agere possunt, quia non habent mentem.” (“Madmen can do nothing, because they have no mind.”)
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 deprived of reason.
In the Church, this truth is confirmed.
The Catholic Encyclopedia (early 20th-century edition) classifies among “irregularities” persons suffering from “amentia, insanity, or any other psychic illness”; these defects exclude the reception or exercise of orders, for they make the accomplishment of ecclesiastical functions impossible.
Thus, to be validly elected to the pontificate, the candidate must be fit to govern, implying mental integrity.
Canon law stipulates:
Canon 984: “Are irregular by defect: … 3° Those who are or have been epileptics or deprived of reason or possessed by the demon; if they have become so after receiving orders and it is certain that they have ceased to be so, the Ordinary may permit his subjects to exercise the orders received again.”
If a pope were to lose this aptitude through madness, the office would become vacant ipso facto, for the pontificate requires the continuous exercise of the plenitude of power (plenitudo potestatis), incompatible with incapacity.
This is not a formal deposition, but an automatic cessation, to preserve the indefectibility of the Church promised by Our Lord (Matthew 16:18).
In practice, to avoid abuses, canonical doctrine often requires the intervention of authority to ascertain the vacancy, even in cases of incapacity.
Claeys-Bouuaert teaches that the pope who permanently 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 aid of a vicar could not substitute for it, given that infallibility and primacy of jurisdiction cannot be delegated” (Traité de Droit Canonique, tome I, p. 376).
Almost all authors share this view, see, for example:
– Wernz-Vidal, Ius Can., vol. II, n. 452, p. 516;
– Wilmers, De Christi Eccl., p. 258;
– Chelodi, Ius de Personis, n. 155, p. 245;
– Cocchi, Comment. in Cod. I. Can., III, n. 155, p. 25;
– Vermeersch-Creusen, Epit. I. Can., I, n. 340, p. 292.
However, some, with Cappello, affirm that it is not possible to prove certain and perpetual dementia:
“De Curia Romana,” Rome, 1913, II, pp. 13-14 (cited by Coronata, Inst. Iuris Can., I, p. 366, note 7).
On this point, one may also consult: Coronata, Inst. Iuris Can., I, p. 366; Sipos, Enchiridion…, p. 156, note 31.
In another work, Cappello affirms that, in the concrete order, God will never permit a pope to become mad: Summa Iuris Canonici, I, n. 309, p. 276.
But this latter position is difficult to sustain today, given the progress of medicine and psychology.
As for the counter-arguments, which invoke papal infallibility to deny any incapacity, they contradict themselves.
Infallibility, dogmatically defined by Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus, 18 July 1870), protects only ex cathedra definitions on faith and morals; it does not prevent the pope from being personally unfit or 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 safeguard of the faith.
IV. Public Heresy (see the chapter on heresy)
Public heresy is a certain cause of ipso facto loss of the pontificate, for a manifest heretic cannot be a member of the Church, still less its head.
This is taught by Saint Robert Bellarmine in “De Romano Pontifice,” Book II, Chapter 30:
“…it is proven by arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is deposed ipso facto… therefore the manifest heretic cannot be pope.”
This is codified in Canon 188 §4 of the Code of Canon Law of 1917.
“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 renunciation admitted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto 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.
Response: by logical and doctrinal extension, most theologians apply it to it. Analogical application is admitted by canonists.
According to the logic of Saint Thomas (Summa Theologica, IIa-IIae, q. 39, a. 1, ad 3), heresy breaks the unity of faith, separating from the Church.
The counter-arguments of schismatics, who deny this automatic loss to preserve their false popes, are refuted: they contradict the Fathers like Saint Cyprian and Saint Jerome, who affirm that heretics exclude themselves.
V. Public Apostasy (see the chapter on apostasy)
Public apostasy, total abandonment of the Christian faith, likewise entails an ipso facto loss of the pontificate, for 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, q. 12, a. 1) that apostasy is a vice opposed to faith.
It renders membership in the Church impossible, for one enters the Church by faith.
Indeed, the priest questions the catechumen (the one to be baptized) at the moment of admission to the catechumenate, before the exorcisms and baptism proper.
The priest asks: “Quid petis ab Ecclesia Dei?” (“What do you seek from the Church of God?”).
The catechumen then responds: “Fidem!” (“Faith!”).
The counter-arguments of heretics, who minimize apostasy to justify ecumenical compromises, are refuted by fixed doctrine: the Church does not tolerate apostates in her bosom.
VI. Public Schism (see the chapter on schism)
Canon law
Public schism, refusal of obedience to legitimate authority or rupture of unity, likewise causes loss of the pontificate if manifest, for it amounts to a defection (Canon 188 §4).
Theology
Saint Thomas (Summa Theologica, IIa-IIae, q. 39, a. 1) defines schism as separation from the ecclesial body.
Some examples of schism by a pope:
– Declaration of a doctrine contrary to defined teachings:
If the pope proclaimed that the dogma of papal infallibility, defined by the Vatican I 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 bishops:
A pope who laid down his tiara, sold it at auction in the presence of declared schismatics, and announced that bishops are no longer bound to submit to the primacy of Rome, or that they must abandon the decisions of a provincial Synod 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, he would provoke a 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 to reconciliation, would amount 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, established a distinct juridical structure, with its own canons and its own magisterium (a so-called “international floating diocese”), and invited the faithful to adhere to it, would reproduce the phenomenon of antipopes and historical schisms.
– Negation of communion with Eastern provinces:
If he declared that Catholic Eastern provinces are no longer in communion with Rome, simply because they do not have the Latin rite, he would break 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 makes 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 acts, popes could engender schism: they undermine the unity of faith, charity, and jurisdiction that characterizes the Catholic Church.
VII. Conclusion
These causes guarantee the divine protection of the Church, for God does not permit an incapable, or a heretic, apostate, or schismatic to reign validly.