30 Opinion 5 is Common Doctrine “Pope Loses Office Ipso facto by public Heresy”

FIFTH OPINION IS COMMON DOCTRINE:

FALLEN INTO MANIFEST HERESY,

THE POPE LOSES IPSO FACTO THE PONTIFICATE

Main Source: The magisterial work “The New Mass of Paul VI: What to Think of It?” by Prof. Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, theologian of Campos, Brazil.

 

 

Table of contents

 

Introduction: this fifth opinion is the doctrine of the Church

 

1. This fifth opinion is defended by many theologians of renown

 

1.1. Defence of this opinion by Saint Robert Bellarmine

 

1.2. Defence of this opinion by Fr. Pietro Ballerini

 

1.3. Subdivision of this fifth opinion

 

1.4. Assessment of this opinion

 

2. In defence of the fifth opinion enumerated by Saint Robert Bellarmine

 

2.1. Possibility of a heretical Pope

 

2.2. Incompatibility at the root

 

2.3. The jurisdiction of the heretic

 

2.4. The central question

 

2.5. The necessity of a declaration is excluded

 

2.6. Degree of notoriety and of divulgation

 

3. Conclusion

N.B.

Notes

 

 

Introduction:

 

We return to what was said in the chapter on the five opinions of St Bellarmine: that this fifth opinion is that of nearly all the authors, including Dr. St Bellarmine himself, and it is advocated by the first Vatican Council of 1870, of which here are the details:

 

1. Vatican Council I of 1870 affirms that it follows Saint Bellarmine

 

At the July session of the first Vatican Council, the general rapporteur, Mgr. Vinzenz Gasser from 1809 to 1879, rejected the accusation formulated against the Deputation by certain conciliar Fathers, according to which they followed the opinion of Alberto Pighius, according to which the Pope could never fall into heresy, even as a private person.

 

He explained that the doctrine of the Vatican Council was neither that of Alberto Pighi, nor the extreme opinion of any school, but that of Saint Robert Bellarmine, who admits this possibility in his Controversies. Mansi, volume 52, column 1218.

 

Historical context of the citation

 

The reported declaration comes from the official intervention called relatio pronounced on 11 July 1870 by Mgr Vincent Gasser, bishop of Brixen, general rapporteur of the Deputation of the Faith, during the 45th general congregation of the Council, with a view to the definition of the dogma of pontifical infallibility in the constitution Pastor aeternus, chapter 4.

 

This relatio defends the doctrinal schema against the accusations brought by certain conciliar Fathers such as Mgr Riccio di Mondragone, who reproached the Deputation with following the extreme opinion of Alberto Pighius or Pigge, Dutch theologian of the sixteenth century, died in 1542, according to which the Pope could never fall into heresy, even as a private person.

 

Mgr Gasser rejects this accusation by explaining that the doctrine of the schema is neither that of Pighius alone, judged extreme by some, nor an isolated opinion, but that of Saint Robert Bellarmine, theologian of the sixteenth century, died in 1621, who admits this possibility, that is to say the potential fall of the Pope into heresy as a private person, without that affecting his infallible office.

 

The original text of Mgr Gasser’s relatio

 

Here is the relevant extract of the relatio:

 

Latin original taken from Collectio Lacensis, volume 7, columns 530 to 531: Quod ad doctrinam, quae in Schemate proponitur, attinet, iniuste Deputatio accusatur, quasi velimus extremam cuiusdam scholae theologorum opinionem, videlicet Alberti Pighii, ad dogmaticam dignitatem evolvere. Nam Alberti Pighii sententia, quam Bellarminus quidem piæ et probabiles nominat, fuit, Pontificem ut personam privatam aut doctorem privatum ex quadam ignorantia errare posse, sed nunquam in haeresim incidere aut haeresim docere posse. De sententia autem Bellarmini haec dicuntur. At doctrina, quae in Schemate proponitur, nec Alberti Pighii est, nec alicuius scholae extremæ, sed Bellarmini, qui hanc possibilitatem in suis Controversiis admittit.

 

Literal translation: As to the doctrine which is proposed in the Schema, the Deputation is unjustly accused, as if we wished to raise to dogmatic dignity the extreme opinion of a certain school of theologians, namely that of Alberto Pighius. For the opinion of Alberto Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed names pious and probable, was that the Pontiff, as a private person or private doctor, could err by a certain ignorance, but could never fall into heresy nor teach heresy. Concerning the opinion of Bellarmine, this is said. But the doctrine which is proposed in the Schema is neither that of Alberto Pighius, nor the extreme opinion of any school, but that of Bellarmine, who admits this possibility in his Controversies.

 

2. Since during and in this infallible ecumenical Council of Vatican I in 1870 it was affirmed by an official intervention, a Relatio, that the Fathers of the Council followed Saint Bellarmine in the question of a heretical pope, we too shall follow Saint Bellarmine rather than other authors such as Cajetan, because this relatio constitutes a particularly important testimony on the thought of the drafters of Pastor Aeternus.

 

1. This opinion is defended by many theologians of renown, such as Saint Robert Bellarmine, Sylvius, Pietro Ballerini, Wernz-Vidal, Cardinal Billot.

 

1.1. Defence of this opinion by Saint Robert Bellarmine

 

After having refuted the other opinions on the subject, Saint Robert Bellarmine sets forth his position in these terms:

 

Therefore the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope and head, in the same manner as he ceases by himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church; and that is why he can be judged and punished by the Church. Such is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and notably of Saint Cyprian book 4, epistle 2, who expresses himself thus concerning Novatian, who was an antipope in the schism that occurred during the pontificate of Saint Cornelius: He could not retain the episcopate, and, if he had previously been made bishop, he withdrew from the body of those who like him were bishops and from the unity of the Church. According to what Saint Cyprian says in this passage, even if Novatian had been a true and legitimate Pope, he would nevertheless have fallen automatically from the pontificate if he had separated himself from the Church.

 

Such is the opinion of great recent doctors, such as John Driedo book 4 of Script. et dogmat. Eccles. cap. 2, par. 2, sent. 2, who teaches that only those separate from the Church who are expelled, as the excommunicated, and those who by themselves withdraw from it and oppose it, as heretics and schismatics. And, in his seventh affirmation, he maintains that in those who have withdrawn from the Church there remains absolutely no spiritual power over those who are in the Church. The same says Melchior Cano book 4 de loc., cap. 2, teaching that heretics are neither parts nor members of the Church, and that one cannot even conceive that someone be head and Pope, without being member and part cap. ult. ad argument. 12. And he teaches in the same place, with clear words, that occult heretics are still of the Church, are parts and members, and that therefore the occult heretic Pope is still Pope. Such is also the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book 1 De Eccles.

 

The foundation of this opinion is that the manifest heretic is in no way a member of the Church, that is to say neither spiritually nor corporally, which means that he is so neither by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by the confession of the faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; occult heretics are united and are members, although only by external union; on the contrary, good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics belong in no way, as we have already proved.

 

Editorial note:

 

indeed, there exists an essential incompatibility between the quality of visible head of the Church and the public state of heresy. Indeed, the Roman Pontiff is the visible principle of the unity of faith. Now the manifest heretic is precisely he who publicly breaks this unity. It would be contradictory that the same subject be simultaneously juridical principle of unity and public principle of division. This contradiction is not simply disciplinary but flows from the very nature of the Church as a visible society founded on the unity of faith.

 

1.2. Defence of this opinion by Fr. Pietro Ballerini

 

The explanation given of his position by another defender of this fifth opinion, Fr. Pietro Ballerini, eminent Italian theologian of the eighteenth century, seems to us very illuminating. After having observed that the Council could not pronounce on the heretical Pope unless he were already deposed, Fr. Ballerini considers:

 

A danger for the faith so imminent and among all most grave, as that of a Pontiff who, although only privately, propagated heresy, could not bear delays. For then, to wait until the remedy come from a general Council, whose convocation is not easy? Is it not true that, before such a danger for the faith, any subjects whatever can by fraternal correction warn their superior, resist him to his face, refute him and, if necessary, interpellate him and press him that he repent? The cardinals will be able to do it, who are his counsellors; or the Roman clergy; or the Roman Synod if, assembled, it judges this opportune. For every person, even private, the words of Saint Paul to Titus hold: Avoid the heretic, after the first and the second correction, knowing that such a man is perverted and sins, once he has been condemned by his own judgment Titus 3, 10-11. For the person who, warned once or twice, does not repent, but remains pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or defined dogma – being unable, by reason of this public pertinacity, to be excused in any way from heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity – this person declares himself openly heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has withdrawn from the Catholic faith and from the Church, so that it is already no longer necessary any declaration or opinion of anyone whatever to cut him from the body of the Church. Very clear in this matter is the argument given by Saint Jerome concerning the cited words of Saint Paul: That is why it is said that the heretic has condemned himself: because the fornicator, the adulterer, the homicide and the other sinners are expelled from the Church by the priests; but heretics pronounce the sentence against themselves, excluding themselves from the Church spontaneously: exclusion which is their condemnation by their own conscience. Therefore the Pontiff who, after so solemn and public a warning by the cardinals, by the Roman clergy or even by the Synod, would remain hardened in heresy and would openly withdraw from the Church, ought to be avoided, in conformity with the precept of Saint Paul. So that he cause no prejudice to others, his heresy and his contumacy ought to be proclaimed publicly, so that all may equally guard themselves with regard to him. Thus the sentence that he has pronounced against himself would be proposed to the whole Church, making clear that by his own will he has withdrawn and separated from the body of the Church, and that in some manner he has abdicated from the pontificate, which no one enjoys or can enjoy if he does not belong to the Church. One sees therefore that in case of heresy, to which the Pontiff would adhere privately, there would be an immediate and efficacious remedy, without convocation of the general Council: for in this hypothesis what would be done against him before the declaration of his contumacy and heresy, with the aim of calling him to reason, would constitute a duty of charity, not of jurisdiction; and after his withdrawal from the Church has been manifested, if a sentence were pronounced against him by the Council, such a sentence would be brought against one who is already no longer Pope nor superior to the Council.

 

1.3. Subdivision of this fifth opinion

 

In our opinion, this fifth opinion ought to be subdivided into three.

 

1. Certain authors affirm that the Pope loses ipso facto the pontificate at the moment when he exteriorizes his heresy.

 

2. Others maintain that this loss occurs when the heresy comes to the knowledge of a certain number of persons, even reduced.

 

3. Others, finally, judge that the heretical Pope does not fall from the Roman See except when his heresy becomes notorious and publicly divulged.

 

This divergence is linked to the centuries-old dispute, which still divides theologians today, on the exact moment when the heretic ceases to be a member of the Church. We do not judge it necessary to set forth here, in detail, the particularities of the various subdivisions of this fifth opinion. It seems to us dispensable, also, to indicate in a precise manner the position of each adherent of this opinion – all the more so because many of them are not clear on this subject. We shall make only brief observations on the thought of Saint Robert Bellarmine and of Wernz-Vidal.

 

Salvo meliori judicio, it seems to us that Saint Robert Bellarmine has not left sufficiently clear his thesis on the moment when the heretical Pope would lose ipso facto the pontificate.

 

He says that this would occur when the heresy became manifest; and he opposes the concept of manifest to that of occult. Now, occult heresy can be internal occult per se, as it can be external but unknown to others occult per accidens. If one attributes to Saint Robert Bellarmine the first of these interpretations, the Pope would lose the pontificate at the moment when he exteriorized his heresy, even if no one perceived it. If one attributes to him the second interpretation, the loss of the pontificate would occur when some other persons – perhaps a single one – knew of the fact.

 

Would there still be a third interpretation? Could one understand as occult heresy that which is already known to many persons, but has not yet reached the general public, is not yet become notorious and publicly divulged? Such an interpretation is adopted by Wernz-Vidal, who even affirms, without hesitating, that according to Saint Robert Bellarmine the heretical Pope would be destitued only when his defection in the faith became notorious and publicly divulged.

 

1.4. Assessment of this opinion

 

We dispense ourselves from presenting again the reasons that can be alleged against this fifth opinion. They have already been set forth in the preceding pages.

 

As we shall say in the following chapter, we judge that this fifth opinion is the true one, and that Wernz-Vidal is right to say – in interpreting Saint Robert Bellarmine – that the Pope eventually heretic loses the pontificate ipso facto, at the moment when his heresy becomes notorious and publicly divulged.

 

2. IN DEFENCE OF THE FIFTH OPINION ENUMERATED BY SAINT ROBERT BELLARMINE

 

Throughout the preceding chapters we have already made some reflections on the arguments alleged by the various schools. We now desire to present an overall view of the conclusions to which the examination of the subject has led us.

 

2.1. Possibility of a heretical Pope

 

One does not find, in Scripture and Tradition, reasons that demonstrate the impossibility of the fall of a Pope into heresy. On the contrary, numerous testimonies of Tradition speak in favour of the possibility of such a fall. Given that, we must consider as theologically possible that a Pope fall into heresy, and study the consequences that such a fact would bring to the life of the Church.

 

2.2. Incompatibility at the root

 

Scripture and Tradition make patent the existence of a profound incompatibility, at the root, between the condition of heretic and the possession of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, once the heretic ceases to be a member of the Church.

 

This incompatibility is such that normally the condition of heretic and the holding of an ecclesiastical jurisdiction do not coexist. Nevertheless, it is not absolute, that is to say it is not such that, falling into internal heresy, or even external, the holder of ecclesiastical jurisdiction is destitued of the charge ipso facto, in all cases and immediately.

 

The arguments presented by the various authors concerning this last point are decisive, and particularly so the arguments drawn from the practice of the Church: by the Code of Canon Law the heretic does not lose jurisdiction except when against him is pronounced a condemnatory or declaratory sentence; priests who have abandoned the Church have jurisdiction to give absolution to persons in danger of death; it is commonly admitted that the Eastern schismatic bishops, themselves also heretics, enjoy a jurisdiction that the Popes concede to them tacitly; etc.

 

That is why we do not call this incompatibility absolute, but we speak only of incompatibility at the root. Heresy cuts the root and foundation of jurisdiction, that is to say the faith and the condition of member of the Church. But it does not eliminate ipso facto and necessarily the jurisdiction itself. Just as a tree can still conserve life for some time after one has cut its root, so also, in frequent cases, jurisdiction endures even after the fall into heresy of him who possessed it.

 

However, jurisdiction is conserved in the person of the heretic only in a precarious title, in a state of violence and to the measure required by a precise and evident reason, dictated by the good of the Church or of souls. Thus is eliminated the position according to which in no hypothesis the heretical Pope would lose his charge, third opinion enumerated by Saint Robert Bellarmine; moreover, this position has against it other weighty arguments drawn from Tradition and from natural reason.

 

If the Pontiff could durably conserve the pontificate after having become publicly heretic, the faithful would be morally obliged to obey exteriorly the very head who publicly destroys the principal object of this obedience, namely the Catholic faith. Such a consequence appears incompatible with the very end of ecclesiastical authority, which is instituted to conserve the faith and not to put it publicly in peril.

 

2.3. The jurisdiction of the heretic

 

Already cut at its root, the jurisdiction of the heretic subsists only to the measure in which it is sustained by another. Thus the Pope sustains, for the good of souls and for the safeguarding of juridical order in the Church, the jurisdiction of the heretic bishop not yet deposed.

 

If it is the Sovereign Pontiff who falls into heresy, who will be able to sustain in him the jurisdiction? The Church? We do not believe so, for she, as considered in opposition to the Pope, is not superior to him, and therefore cannot sustain his jurisdiction. The Pope is not subject to ecclesiastical law. Jesus Christ? Yes, to the measure in which it is licit to attribute to Him the intention of sustaining jurisdiction in the person of the heretical Pontiff.

 

2.4. The central question

 

Here arises the central question: are there circumstances in which one can and must say that Our Lord has established that He would sustain, at least for some time, the jurisdiction of a Pope eventually heretic?

 

Nothing exists, in Holy Scripture and Tradition, that constitutes a sure and definitive answer to this question. As we do not seek here only arguments of probability, but principally reasons that justify a certainty, we must investigate whether elsewhere we find sure elements to answer the question proposed.

 

As is evident, in theological matter one cannot conceive an argumentation that does not start from at least one revealed premise. What we seek, therefore, is a minor premise, drawn not from Revelation but from natural reason, and which, united to a revealed major premise, furnish a sure solution to the question presented above.

 

We judge that the adequate revealed major premise from which we must start is the dogma according to which the Church is a visible and perfect society. As minor premise, we must pose the principle, drawn from nature itself, according to which the facts of the public and official life of a visible and perfect society must be notorious and publicly divulged. From there it would be concluded that an eventual destitution of the head of the Church would not be a juridically consummated fact so long as it did not become notorious and publicly divulged.

 

In scholastic form, we could draft the following sorites:

 

The Church is a visible and perfect society.

 

Now, the facts of the official and public life of a visible and perfect society do not become juridically consummated except when they are notorious and publicly divulged.

 

Now, the loss of the pontificate is a fact of the public and official life of the Church.

 

Therefore, the loss of the pontificate does not become juridically consummated except when it is notorious and publicly divulged.

 

Such a conclusion, flowing from a revealed truth and from a premise evident to natural reason, expresses the certain will of Our Lord. It would not be a formally revealed truth, but a virtually revealed truth, a theological conclusion.

 

Indeed, the contrary hypothesis would lead to rendering it impossible for the faithful to know with certainty who really possesses the supreme authority in the Church. Now a visible society instituted by Our Lord to lead all men to salvation cannot depend durably on a juridical state objectively indeterminable. If the loss of the Pontificate could occur before the defection in the faith had become notoriously and publicly known, the very identity of the visible head of the Church would then depend on a fact remaining occult for the greater part of the faithful. The essential visibility of the Church would thereby be gravely compromised, since it would become impossible to determine objectively who really possesses the supreme jurisdiction. It is precisely to safeguard this visibility that the loss of the Pontificate cannot become juridically effective before the heresy has become notorious and publicly divulged.

 

Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, therefore, would sustain the jurisdiction of the heretical Pope until the moment when his defection in the faith became notorious and publicly divulged.

 

In consequence, all the jurisdictional acts practised by the Pope during this period would be valid. Let us even imagine the case in which he would utter a dogmatic definition, supposing a purely theoretical hypothesis that such a Pontiff still fulfilled all the conditions required for an act ex cathedra before his defection became notorious and publicly divulged,

 

this would be infallible. The Holy Ghost, in such a hypothesis, would speak through him as He spoke by the ass of Balaam.

 

Note that the argumentation of which we make use is not the same as that of Saint Robert Bellarmine, taken up by Wernz-Vidal. They start from the principle that he who is, in no sense, a member of the Church, cannot be its head. Such an argument seems to us true, provided one add to it a clause according to which Our Lord would sustain the jurisdiction of the heretical Pope so long as his heresy did not become notorious and publicly divulged. Nevertheless, even thus formulated, this argument raises another question, extremely disputed: the exact moment when the heretic ceases to be a member of the Church. According to what we think, whatever this moment may be, the Pope eventually heretic would not effectively fall from the pontificate except when his defection in the faith became notorious and publicly divulged.

 

2.5. The necessity of a declaration is excluded

 

In our opinion, the arguments presented above eliminate the opinions according to which the Pope would lose the pontificate at the moment when he fell into internal heresy, into occult external heresy, and into manifest external heresy but not notorious and publicly divulged.

 

There would still remain standing two positions: the loss ipso facto by notorious and publicly divulged heresy, and the loss by declaration.

 

Now, this last seems untenable, because, as Saint Robert Bellarmine demonstrated in his argumentation against Cajetan, it does not coexist with the principle according to which the Pope cannot be judged by any man.

 

2.6. Degree of notoriety and of divulgation

 

What degree of notoriety and of divulgation is necessary for the Pope eventually heretic to be considered deposed? In answer to this question we must initially observe that there would be a certain degree of notoriety and of divulgation in which, without any doubt, the loss of the charge would have occurred. The problem would arise, that yes, with regard to the precise moment when the destitution would occur. As to this particular, the proposed question could not be fully answered except in function of the concrete circumstances. The concepts of notorious and publicly divulged seem to us in theory clear; their application to the concrete order would require the examination of a vast casuistry, of which it does not belong to us here to treat.

 

It suffices, at the moment, to recall an observation that we have made above: it is not because in practice this opinion could bring dissensions of great amplitude, that one must hold it for false.

 

3. Conclusion, the 5th Opinion is Common Doctrine of the Church in this matter.

 

Summarizing: we believe that a careful examination of the question of the heretical Pope, with the theological elements of which we dispose today, permits one to conclude that an eventual heretical Pope would lose the charge at the moment when his heresy became notorious and publicly divulged. And we think that this opinion is not only intrinsically probable, but certain, since the reasons that can be advanced in its favour seem to us absolutely determining. Moreover, in the works that we have consulted, we have found no argument that persuaded us of the contrary.

 

N.B.

 

Therefore the following thought is erroneous: Be that as it may, other opinions remain extrinsically probable, given that they have in their favour authors of weight. Therefore, in the order of concrete action it would not be licit to take a determined position, seeking to impose it without more. It is for this reason that, as we said at the beginning, we invite the specialists in the matter to restudy the question. Only thus will it be possible to arrive at a general agreement among theologians, so that a determined opinion can be classified as theologically certain.

 

Why erroneous: because one opposes an external probability to an internal probability.

 

Indeed Prof. Da Silveira poses this note in his introduction to part II of his work: A proposition or opinion is called probable when it has in its favour reasons or motives of such weight, that a prudent person can assent to it, not in a firm manner as in the case of certainty, but with fear of error Noldin-Schmitt-Heinzel, Summa Theol. Mor., volume I, page 215, number 225.

 

Intrinsic or internal probability is founded on reasons drawn from the very nature of the thing; extrinsic or external probability is based directly on the authority of the learned idem, ibidem, page 215, number 226.

 

External probability per se supposes the internal, that is to say it supposes that the learned have been led by internal reasons to embrace the truth idem, ibidem, page 215, number 226.

 

Admitted that external probability is based essentially on the internal, it is not licit to appeal to external probability when one knows that the opinion is false and has no internal probability of being correct, even if authors of great name defend it. External probability without internal probability can be invoked only when one treats of an obscure matter, enveloped in difficulties, and still not sufficiently clarified by the authors idem, ibidem, page 225, number 238.

 

Notes

 

1. Saint Robert Bellarmine: text that we cite hereafter; Sylvius: ad II-II, q. 39, a. 1; Pietro Ballerini: text that we cite at pages 27 to 28; Wernz-Vidal: Ius Can., tome II, pages 517 and following; Billot: text that we cite at page 7.

 

2. Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Rom. Pont., liber II, caput 30, page 420.

 

3. Pietro Ballerini, De Potestate Ecclesiastica…, pages 104 to 105.

 

4. We indicate this subdivision in the observations to position B-II-2 of the synoptic table of page 6. To this tripartite division allusion is made, for example, by Suarez in De Leg., liber IV, caput VII, number 6, page 360.

 

5. Notoria et palam divulgata – The expression is of Wernz-Vidal: Ius Can., volume II, page 517.

 

6. As we have already observed, there does not exist however an absolute correspondence between the position assumed by each author as to the moment when the heretic is excluded from the Church, and his opinion on the question of the heretical Pope: see pages 16 to 17.

 

7. De Rom. Pont., liber II, caput 30. See also De Ecclesia Militante, liber III, caput 4 to 10.

 

8. We would exceed the limits of this exposition if we sought to analyse how fluctuating, even among the best authors, are the concepts of occult, manifest, public, notorious, etc. We cite here only some bibliography on this subject: Cod. de Dir. Can., canon 2197; canon 2259, paragraph 2; canon 2275, 1; Billot, Tract. de Eccl. Christi, tome II, page 617; Lercher, Instit. Theol. Dogm., volume I, page 233, number 407; Hervé, manuale Theol. Dogm., volume I, page 448; Sipos, Ench. Iuris Can., page 774, item a; page 810; page 833, item b; Salaverri, De Eccl. Christi, page 879, number 1047; Miguélez-Alonso-Cabreros, Cod. de Der. Can., commentary on canon 2197.

 

9. See especially the citations that we have made of Suarez pages 21 and following and Bouix pages 18 and following.

 

10. See pages 8 and following. Tradition in the ample sense, to which we refer, includes both divine Tradition and ecclesiastical Tradition. We know it through conciliar acts, pontifical documents, patristic writings, works of theologians, etc. see Pesch, Praelect. Dogm., tomus I, nn. 564, 571.

 

11. See the texts of Saint Robert Bellarmine and Suarez that we transcribe, respectively, at pages 24 and following and 16 to 17.

 

12. On the moment when the heretic ceases to be a member of the Church, see page 17, note 2.

 

13. See the reasons alleged by Suarez, reproduced by us at pages 16 to 17.

 

14. Canon 2264. This canon, by itself, would suffice to demonstrate that the texts of the Fathers of the Church referring to the incompatibility between heresy and jurisdiction cannot be understood in the sense of an absolute and omnimodal incompatibility.

 

15. Canon 882. In default of another priest, they can also administer the other sacraments and sacramentals to persons in danger of death: canon 2261, paragraph 3.

 

16. See Hervé, Man. Theol. Dogm., volume I, page 449, number 453, note 1, and bibliography indicated there.

 

17. As Suarez says in a text cited at pages 45 and following, in this case the heretical Pope is not a member of the Church as to the substance and the form that constitute the members of the Church, but is head as to the charge and the action.

 

18. See pages 16 to 17, 20, 27 and following.

 

19. Normally one says that, in certain cases provided by Law, the jurisdiction of him who has none is supplied by the Pope or by the Church. In hypothesis of common error, for example, the Church supplies the inexistent jurisdiction, in conformity with canon 209. Nevertheless, according to what the authors teach, supplied jurisdiction exists only as act, not as habitus Lehmkuhl, Theologia Moralis, volume II, page 281, number 387; Wernz-Vidal, Ius Can., tome II, page 439; Vermeersch-Creusen, Epit. Iuris Can., tome I, page 278. Now, in the hypothesis that we envisage, jurisdiction would exist as habitus, and not only as act. It does not appear to us that there is a technical term that indicates such a juridical situation. Given that, we say that jurisdiction is then sustained in the person of the heretic.

 

20. Certain authors, especially ancient ones, have not considered that jurisdiction can be sustained in the heretic, in view of an eminent interest of souls or of the Church. That is why, even Saint Robert Bellarmine, as we have signalled in note 1 of page 25, seems to deny the possibility of the permanence of jurisdiction in the manifest heretic – permanence that the practice of the Church in the last centuries, especially in relation to heretic bishops not yet deposed, obliges one to admit as legitimate.

 

21. See: Denz.-Umb, systematic index, item Ia; Denz.-Sch., systematic index, item G4a.

 

22. We believe that this minor premise dispenses demonstration, but requires some explanations.

 

It dispenses demonstration because one could not conceive that the public and official life of a visible and perfect society develop through occult facts. Suarez exposes this principle in a text that we reproduce at pages 16 to 17. And Domingo Soto uses a particularly happy expression in saying that, if there were depositions of prelates by reason of causes not externally ascertainable, all jurisdictions would become ambiguous and confused omnes jurisdictiones versarentur in ambiguo et in confuso – Comment. in IV Sent., dist. 22, q. 2, a. 2, page 1022. By analogous reason the authors say that the papal resignation is not consummated except at the moment when it is communicated to the Church see Coronata, Instit. Iuris Can., volume I, page 366.

 

Some necessary explanations (taken literally from the book of Prof. da Silveira):

 

1 We have already observed note 2 of page 29 (in the book of Prof. da S.) that the concept of notoriety does not have in Canon Law an entirely defined sense. We understand here by notorious that which, of right and of fact, fulfils all the conditions necessary for it to be able to be known, by all the subjects, with certainty and without great difficulty.

 

2 We understand by publicly divulged that which of fact has already arrived at the knowledge of the general public, or at least of a number of persons sufficient for the process of its divulgation to the general public to have already become irreversible.

 

3 The expression notorious and publicly divulged is found in Wernz-Vidal, as we have already indicated in note 3 of page 28.

 

23. See note 1 of page 7. In the same sense Laymann pronounces himself, Theol. Mor., liber II, tract. I, caput VII, number 1, page 146.

 

24. See pages 24 and following and 29.

 

25. See pages 16 to 17.

 

26. Second opinion referred by Saint Robert Bellarmine. See pages 16 and following.

 

27. First subdivision proposed by us to the fifth opinion referred by Saint Robert Bellarmine See page 28.

 

28. Second subdivision proposed by us to the fifth opinion. See page 28.

 

29. Third subdivision proposed by us to the fifth opinion. See page 28.

 

30. Fourth opinion referred by Saint Robert Bellarmine. See pages 21 and following.

 

31. We transcribe this long argumentation at pages 24 and following. See also note 2 of page 23.

 

32. One must see there no suspicion of conciliarism, that yes, in the principle according to which ecclesiastical organisms, such as the Council, can emit a declaratory pronouncement of an eventual cessation of functions of a heretical Pope, provided that these organisms do not pretend to have any other right than that which every faithful enjoys. For motives of pure convenience and courtesy, to these organisms could belong, in the first place, to make such a declaration; but this priority would not constitute for them a proper right, and still less exclusive.

 

Note that the concepts of notorious and publicly divulged do not seem to us in theory clear; their application to the concrete order would require the examination of a vast casuistry, of which it does not belong to us here to treat.

 

33. See page 29, note 2.