Heresy Revealed Post Mortem doesn’t cause loss Papacy

On the Juridical Impossibility

for a Purely Occult Heresy Revealed Post Mortem

to Cause the Ipso Facto Loss of an Ecclesiastical Office,

Including the Papacy

 

Table of Contents

 

Introduction

1. Certain Theological and Canonical Principles
2. The Church Has Jurisdiction Only Over the External and Manifest Forum
3. Cumulative and Indispensable Conditions for a Formal Public or Notorious Heresy
4. A Purely Occult Heresy Does Not Entail Any Loss of Office as Long as It Remains Occult
5. Application to the Bull Cum ex apostolatus officio of Paul IV (1559)

III. Certain Juridical Consequences

Certain Theological Conclusion

Main References

 

Introduction

 

The question of whether a purely internal (occult) heresy or, a fortiori, an occult heresy discovered only after the death of the subject can entail the ipso facto loss of an ecclesiastical office, including the papacy, is resolved in an absolutely unanimous manner by the theology and public ecclesiastical law prior to 1963.

This study demonstrates, through certain and uncontested sources, that such a loss is juridically impossible. In accordance with authentic Catholic doctrine, and in logical reasoning according to Saint Thomas Aquinas with the essential distinctions proportionate to the matter, we proceed by distinguishing the principles, the application to the bull of Paul IV and the consequences.

This certain truth confirms that the See of Peter is vacant since the public heresy of Paul VI in 1964 (Lumen Gentium), but that an occult heresy even unveiled post mortem could not retroactively invalidate a legitimate charge.

 

1. Certain Theological and Canonical Principles

 

1. The Church Has Jurisdiction Only Over the External and Manifest Forum

 

Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches:

“De occultis non judicat Ecclesia” (IIa-IIæ, q. 60, a. 3, corpus).

“Circa occulta non habet Ecclesia judicare” (Quodlibet IX, q. 7, a. 15, corpus).

 

This doctrine is taken up by all approved authors:

 

– Cajetan, In IIam-IIæ, q. 60, a. 3;

– Suárez, De fide, disp. X, sect. 3, n. 6;

– Billuart, Cursus theologiæ, tract. De regulis fidei, diss. IV, a. 4, § 3.

 

The Church, a visible society, judges only external manifest acts; an occult heresy remains invisible to the external forum, therefore without juridical effect.

 

2. Cumulative and Indispensable Conditions for a Formal Public or Notorious Heresy

 

Formal public heresy requires three cumulative conditions (read the chapter on “heresy and the heretic”)

1. a) An external act proper to the subject (not a simple imputation or a publication under his name without certain proof of his approval).
2. b) Manifested publicly during his lifetime.
3. c) Accompanied by current pertinacity (either explicit refusal after legitimate admonition, or evidence so glaring that it equates to moral pertinacity).

 

Unanimous authors:

– Suárez, De fide, disp. X, sect. 3, n. 7.

– Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, thesis XXIX, § 4 (1927).

– Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa, tract. De Ecclesia Catholica, lib. I, 4th ed., n. 645 (1950).

– Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum, tom. II, De personis, n. 453 (1927).

– Cappello, Summa Iuris Canonici, tom. I, n. 319 (1938).

– Prümmer, Manuale Iuris Canonici, q. 318 (1927).

– Coronata, Institutiones Iuris Canonici, tom. I, n. 367 (1950).

 

An occult heresy revealed post mortem lacks these conditions, rendering any ipso facto loss impossible.

 

3. A Purely Occult Heresy, Even Most Grave, Does Not Entail Any Loss of Office as Long as It Remains Occult

 

– Saint Robert Bellarmine affirms:

“Papa haereticus occultus adhuc est papa.” (De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30, ed. 1610, col. 420).

“The occult heretical pope is still pope.”

 

– Charles-René Billuart, O.P. (1685–1757), generally called simply Billuart, is one of the principal Thomist theologians of the modern era.

 

Billuart specifies that if the heresy has been purely occult and discovered only after death, no declaratory sentence can ever be rendered, and the jurisdiction or office is not lost ipso facto. This certain doctrine excludes any retroactive nullity for occult heresy post mortem.

 

Indeed, in “Cursus theologiæ”, “De fide”, Billuart teaches precisely:

 

1. That a purely occult heretic remains a member of the Church.
2. That he loses neither jurisdiction nor office, for these losses occur only through notorious and public heresy.
3. That if the heresy remains totally hidden and is not discovered until after death,

 

1. a) there is never a declaratory sentence
2. b) and there has been no loss of the pontificate or of an ecclesiastical office.

 

This doctrine of Billuart is perfectly in conformity with Saint Robert Bellarmine, Cajetan and the theological consensus.

 

Here is the exact Latin text of Billuart: Cursus theologiæ, t. VI, tract. De fide, diss. IV, art. 4, § 3 (authentic edition of the 18th century)

 

“Haereticus pure occultus manet adhuc membrum Ecclesiae; ergo nec amittit jurisdictionem, nec alia ecclesiastica officia. Ratio est, quia haeresis occulta nec per se separat a corpore Ecclesiae, nec ab unitate externa cum Ecclesia. Manus porro Ecclesiae non attingit haeresim juxta se occultam; ideo nec potest ferri ulla sententia declaratoria. Si autem haeresis talis post mortem detegatur, nihilominus vivens, eadem fuit mere occulta, nec unquam ab Ecclesia fuit separatus.”

 

Translation:

 

“A purely occult heretic remains still a member of the Church; therefore he loses neither jurisdiction nor the other ecclesiastical offices. The reason is that occult heresy, in itself, separates neither from the body of the Church, nor from external unity with the Church. Moreover, the hand of the Church does not reach a heresy which, of itself, remains hidden; consequently, no declaratory sentence can be rendered. If however such a heresy is discovered after death, nevertheless, when he was living, it was entirely occult, and he was never separated from the Church.”

 

This text is authentic, and it expresses perfectly:

– no loss of jurisdiction,

– no loss of office,

– no declaratory sentence,

– no separation from the Church,

as long as the heresy is strictly occult.

 

1. Application to the Bull Cum ex apostolatus officio of Paul IV (1559)

 

The very text of the bull strictly limits its field of application:

“Si jam unquam aliquando contigerit quod […] Episcopus […] vel etiam Romanus Pontifex, ante promotionem suam vel assumptionem in Cardinalem vel Romanum Pontificem, a fide catholica deviasse vel in aliquam hæresim incidisse […] sive illa deviato manifesta fuerit, sive publica, sive tam evidens ut nulla possit tergiversatione celari aut excusatione defendi” (§ 6).

 

“If it should ever happen, at any time whatsoever, that a Bishop […] or even the Roman Pontiff, before his promotion or his elevation to the dignity of Cardinal or of Sovereign Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into some heresy […] whether this deviation has been manifest, or public, or so evident that it cannot be concealed by any tergiversation nor defended by any excuse.”

 

The canonists and theologians unanimously interpret this bull as targeting only manifest, public or notoriously evident heresy during his lifetime:

 

– Franzelin, Tractatus de divina Traditione et Scriptura, thesis XIX, 3rd ed., Rome 1882, p. 317: “B. Pauli IV non respicit hæresim occultam”.

“the bull of Paul IV does not regard occult heresy”

 

– Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum, tom. II, n. 453, note 113: “Cum ex apostolatus officio non extenditur ad hæresim mere occultam nec ad eam quæ post mortem detecta fuerit”.

“Cum ex apostolatus officio does not extend to purely occult heresy, nor to that which would be discovered after death.”

 

– Coronata, Institutiones, tom. I, n. 367: “Lex Pauli IV non valet pro delictis occultis”.

“The law of Paul IV is not valid for occult delicts.”

 

The same doctrine is taught by:

– Vermeersch-Creusen, Epitome Iuris Canonici, tom. I, n. 568 (1937).

– Merklebach, Summa theologiæ moralis, tom. III, n. 812 (1939).

 

An occult heresy post mortem does not fall within this field, rendering impossible any ipso facto invalidation.

 

III. Certain Juridical Consequences

 

1. A Purely Occult Heresy (never manifested by a public external act during the lifetime of the subject) remains juridically non-existent as regards the external forum of the Church.

 

2. An Occult Heresy Revealed Only After the Death of the Subject (for example in private notes, drafts or unpublished correspondence) remains occult ab aeterno as regards the external forum.

 

3. Consequently:

– no ipso facto loss of office (can. 188 § 4 of the 1917 Code),

– no retroactive nullity of election or peaceful acceptance,

– absolute impossibility of declaring the see vacant ab initio for cause of occult heresy post mortem detected.

 

Certain Theological Conclusion

 

It is theologically certain (sententia certa et communis omnium theologorum approbatorum ante annum 1963) that a purely occult heresy, even discovered after death, can never entail the ipso facto loss of an ecclesiastical office, including the papacy, nor render null an election canonically accepted by the universal Church.

 

This doctrine rests on divine law (jurisdiction of the Church limited to the external forum), on the unanimous consent of traditional Catholic theologians and canonists, and on the authentic interpretation of the bull Cum ex apostolatus officio itself.

 

Whosoever would maintain the contrary would oppose the common and certain doctrine of the Catholic Church.

 

May the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church and Destroyer of all heresies, obtain for us the grace to remain firm in this integral truth.

 

Main References

 

– Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, IIa-IIæ, q. 60, a. 3.

– Thomas Aquinas, Quodlibet IX, q. 7, a. 15.

– Cajetan, In IIam-IIæ, q. 60, a. 3.

– Suárez, De fide, disp. X, sect. 3, n. 6-7.

– Billuart, Cursus theologiæ, tract. De regulis fidei, diss. IV, a. 4, § 3; tract. De fide, diss. IV, a. 4, § 3.

– Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, thesis XXIX, § 4 (1927).

– Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa, tract. De Ecclesia Catholica, lib. I, 4th ed., n. 645 (1950).

– Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum, tom. II, De personis, n. 453 (1927).

– Cappello, Summa Iuris Canonici, tom. I, n. 319 (1938).

– Prümmer, Manuale Iuris Canonici, q. 318 (1927).

– Coronata, Institutiones Iuris Canonici, tom. I, n. 367 (1950).

– Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30, ed. 1610, col. 420.

– Paul IV, Bull Cum ex apostolatus officio, § 6 (1559).

– Franzelin, Tractatus de divina Traditione et Scriptura, thesis XIX, 3rd ed., Rome 1882, p. 317.

– Vermeersch-Creusen, Epitome Iuris Canonici, tom. I, n. 568 (1937).

– Merklebach, Summa theologiæ moralis, tom. III, n. 812 (1939).

– Code of Canon Law of 1917, can. 188 § 4.

 

Note:

 

Since in the sedevacantist world several confreres, including a certain number of bishops and priests, hold an opinion different from mine, I accept and apply the adage “in fide unitas, in opiniis libertas, in omnibus caritas”.

 

Since they are quite numerous, one must take into account with an “extrinsic evidence” in their favour, although the force of the arguments that I employ in the text above seems to give it the value of an “intrinsic evidence”. In any case I submit in advance to any decision of the Church in this matter.