The Case of Paul VI Pope Become Antipope
Having Become a Formal Heretic He Lost His Office
Table of Contents:
Introduction
1: Fundamental Definitions and Distinctions
1.1. Definition of Heresy and Its Consequences
1.2. Distinction between Material Heresy and Formal Heresy
1.3. Pertinacity
1.4. Resistance
2: The Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio of Paul IV and the Certain Doctrinal
Principle
3: The Infallibility of the Universal Peaceful Acceptance (U.P.A.)
4: The Public and Manifest Heresies of Vatican II and of Paul VI
5: Indefectibility of the Church and Continuity in Time of Crisis
6: Historical and Canonical Analysis of the Case of Paul VI
6.1. 1963: Election and U.P.A.
6.2. 1964: Public and Manifest Heresy and Loss of Office
6.3. Immediate Resistance
6.4. 1964-1971: Period of Progressive Recognition
6.5. Fidelity to the Bull and to the U.P.A.
7: Supplementary Arguments
7.1. The Pope Heretic Cannot Be the Proximate Rule of Faith
7.2. The Unity of Faith Is Constitutive of the Church
7.3. Impossibility of Two Contradictory Magisteria
7.4. Visibility of the Church
7.5. Impossibility of an Officially Non-Binding Magisterium
7.6. Visibility of the Rule of Faith
7.7. Formal Continuity of the Church
7.8. Against the Objection of the Absence of a Declaration
8: Refutation of Counter-Arguments
Conclusion
Introduction
According to the immutable doctrine of the Catholic Church, founded on the Scriptures, the Fathers, the Doctors and the ecumenical councils before 1963, public and manifest heresy entails the loss of the office of belonging to the Church and, consequently, of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction. We shall demonstrate here, by the establishment of the facts and by logical reasoning, that Paul VI manifested public and manifest heresies, placing him outside the Church.
This study examines the case of Paul VI in detail: his initial legitimacy infallibly confirmed by the Universal Peaceful Acceptance (U.P.A.) at the time of his election in 1963; the loss of office and automatic loss of his office (as regards the subject of jurisdiction) by public and manifest heresy in 1964, at the time of the promulgation of the constitution Lumen Gentium; the subsequent resistance of faithful Catholics as a negative sign of non-adherence to the heretic; finally, the formal and progressive recognition of this vacancy, culminating with the first public declarations in 1971 by Father Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga in La Nueva Iglesia Montiniana. This analysis reconciles the bull of Paul IV (which attests the certain doctrinal principle that a manifest heretic cannot hold supreme jurisdiction) with the infallibility of the U.P.A. (which guarantees the initial moral legitimacy, but whose peacefulness is broken by the subsequent heresy, as a simple negative sign).
1: Fundamental Definitions and Distinctions
1.1. Definition of Heresy and Its Consequences: Heresy is the obstinate rejection, after baptism, of a truth of divine and Catholic faith proposed as such by the Church. A public doctor who promulgates documents containing heresies manifests pertinacity, presumed morally and juridically by the very nature of the official and public act (bound ex officio to know the faith, with invincible ignorance impossible). Manifest heretics lose ipso facto all jurisdiction, as Saint Robert Bellarmine explains: “Manifestus haereticus nullo modo est de Ecclesia.” (Translation: “The manifest heretic is in no way a member of the Church.”) (De Romano Pontifice, book II, chapter 30).
Canon No. 2314 of the Code of Canon Law (1917) presupposes this doctrine for inferior clerics, but the loss of the office of the pontificate pertains to divine law.
1.2. Distinction between Material Heresy and Formal Heresy: Material heresy is an objective error against the faith, but without subjective guilt. Formal heresy implies conscious and voluntary obstinacy.
1.3. Pertinacity: It is presumed in public doctors by the nature of the act, not by psychological judgment. Indeed, the law presumes morally the external pertinacity in one who officially teaches errors against the faith after having received the mission to teach it.
The classical canonical tradition, reported notably by Rufinus and the decretists, teaches: “Prima sedes non judicabitur a quoquam nisi in fidei articulis pertinaciter erraverit”. (Translation: “The first see will not be judged by anyone except if he has pertinaciously erred in the articles of faith.”) (Gratian and all the medieval canonists, D.T.C., 1927, Volume 7, part 2, p. 1714.)
From the strict doctrinal point of view, there is no ontological gray period: the vacancy is immediate in divine law; human recognition is progressive in historical fact.
1.4. Resistance: It constitutes a negative sign of non-adherence; it is a probable theological opinion that it indicates implicitly the vacancy, without creating it.
2: The Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio of Paul IV and the Certain Doctrinal Principle
The bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio (15 February 1559) declares: “Si contingat aliquem… ante suam promotionem vel elevationem… a fide catholica deviasse vel in aliquam haeresim incidisse… promotio… est nulla, irrita et inanis”. (Translation: “If it should happen that someone… before his promotion or elevation… has deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into some heresy… his promotion is null, void and without effect.”) Without a constitutive declaration, but the constatation may be required for the external order, in order to establish the public fact.
The bull attests juridically a doctrinal principle already taught by the prior tradition: a manifest heretic cannot be a member of the Church and, therefore, cannot be its head. This principle applies to subsequent heresy by the very nature of manifest heresy.
3: The Infallibility of the Universal Peaceful Acceptance (U.P.A.)
The initial universal peaceful acceptance is an infallible dogmatic fact as regards the legitimacy of the election; perseverance in the office depends on the conservation of the conditions required by divine law, notably belonging to the Church. Subsequent resistance is a sufficient negative sign that the pontiff has subsequently fallen into heresy.
Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 1, a. 10 (Leonine edition): essential excerpt: “Una fides debet esse in tota Ecclesia… Quae unitas servari non posset si quaestio fidei orta… determinari non posset ab eo qui toti Ecclesiae praeest”. (Translation: “There must be only one faith in the whole Church… Such unity could not be preserved if a question of faith that has arisen… could not be decided by him who presides over the whole Church.”)
4: The Public and Manifest Heresies of Vatican II and of Paul VI
A teaching that contradicts a defined dogma is heretical. The Council Vatican I (Dei Filius) declares: “Si quis dixerit… anathema sit.” (Translation: “If anyone says… let him be anathema.”)
Rigorous example: Gaudium et Spes no. 12: “Believers and unbelievers are generally in agreement on this point: everything on earth must be ordered to man as to its center and summit.” The material proposition places man as center and summit of everything on earth. Its objective theological qualification is heretical, because it formally contradicts the defined doctrine on the primacy of God as ultimate end, subordinating the temporal order to the supernatural. This contradicts the Syllabus of Pius IX, proposition 3: “Humana ratio, nullo prorsus Dei habito respectu, unicus est veri et falsi, boni et mali arbiter; sibi ipsi est lex et naturalibus suis viribus ad hominum ac populorum bonum curandum sufficit.” (Translation: “Human reason, without any regard for God, is the sole judge of the true and the false, of the good and the evil; it is a law unto itself, and by its natural powers it suffices to procure the good of men and peoples.”)
In short, this proposition objectively contradicts the defined dogma according to which God is the ultimate end of all creation. It therefore constitutes materially a heretical proposition; promulgated officially by Paul VI, it publicly manifests his adherence to a doctrine contrary to the faith.
Rigorous example: Lumen Gentium introduces a collegiality where the episcopal college is holder of supreme jurisdiction with the pope, directly contradicting Pastor Aeternus (Vatican I) which affirms that the Roman pontiff is the sole holder of the full and immediate supreme jurisdiction – a contradiction bearing on the very subject of supreme jurisdiction, pertaining to the divine constitution of the Church.
This contradiction does not bear on a simple modality of the exercise of power, but on the very subject of supreme jurisdiction. Vatican I teaches that the Roman Pontiff possesses, by virtue of his personal office, the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church. Pastor Aeternus declares indeed: “Si quis dixerit Romanum Pontificem habere tantummodo officium inspectionis vel directionis, non autem plenam et supremam potestatem iurisdictionis in universam Ecclesiam… anathema sit.” (Translation: “If anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has only an office of inspection or direction, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church… let him be anathema.”) Then the same council affirms that this jurisdiction belongs to the Roman Pontiff personally, immediately and ordinarily, as to its sole holder.
Now Lumen Gentium no. 22 teaches that “the order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of the Apostles… is also holder of the supreme and full power over the universal Church with its head, the Roman Pontiff”. Thus, the holder of supreme jurisdiction is no longer solely the Roman Pontiff, but a collegial subject composed of the pope and the whole body of bishops.
It is therefore not a simple disciplinary or pastoral precision, but a modification of the very constitution of the Church. Vatican I recognizes one single holder of supreme jurisdiction; Vatican II affirms two: the Roman Pontiff personally, and the episcopal college united to him. Two doctrines attributing supreme jurisdiction to different subjects cannot be simultaneously true. The contradiction therefore bears directly on the divine constitution of the Church.
This contradiction cannot be set aside by the “Nota explicativa praevia” annexed to Lumen Gentium. This recognizes expressly that the episcopal college is also holder of the supreme and full power over the universal Church, while specifying only the conditions of its exercise. The difficulty therefore does not concern the exercise of supreme jurisdiction, but its subject. Now it is precisely on this point that Vatican I had defined that supreme jurisdiction belongs personally to the Roman Pontiff. The Nota explicativa praevia therefore does not remove the doctrinal difficulty; it confirms it by explicitly admitting the existence of a second holder of supreme jurisdiction.
Paul VI promulgated and maintained these heresies, manifesting public pertinacity.
5: Indefectibility of the Church and Continuity in Time of Crisis
The doctrine of the indefectibility of the Catholic Church is a truth of divine and Catholic faith, founded on divine Revelation and affirmed by the constant magisterium of the Church before 1963. It guarantees that the Church, instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ, perseveres until the end of time without ever failing in its essential properties: its visibility, its unity, its holiness, its catholicity, its apostolicity, its infallibility and its Magisterium.
Indeed, the perpetuity of the New Law, according to Saint Thomas Aquinas, confirms the indefectibility of the Church as a visible society until the end of time. In the Summa Theologica (I-II, q. 106, a. 4), he teaches exactly: “The state of this world can undergo two kinds of changes: 1° A change of law. In this sense, no other state must succeed that of the New Law. For this latter has already succeeded the old law as a more perfect state succeeds a less perfect state; but no other state of the present life can be more perfect than that of the New Law… Thus there cannot be in the present life a state more perfect than that of the New Law… The state which is theirs must therefore last until the end of the world.” Logically, this divine perpetuity excludes any total defection of the Church, for a prolonged vacancy without continuity would contradict the end of salvation promised by Christ.
Then this truth flows logically from the first divine cause: God, having ordained the Church as the necessary instrument of salvation, cannot permit it to be corrupted without contradicting His promise, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explains: “Faith rests on divine authority” (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 2, a. 10).
Indefectibility designates the property by which the Catholic Church, founded by Christ, remains immutable in its essential characteristics until the end of time, as the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) affirms: “Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is meant not only that the Church will persist until the end of time, but also that it will preserve intact its essential characteristics.”
This indefectibility applies to the Church as a visible and hierarchical society, and not to its individual members, who can fail. Logically, indefectibility flows from the divine end: the Church is the instrument of salvation, and its defection would contradict the divine promise.
The scriptural foundations are certain: Matthew 16:18: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” This promise guarantees that the Church will never be overcome by error or corruption. Matthew 28:20: “And behold, I am with you all days, until the end of the world.” The continuous presence of Christ assures the permanence of the Church.
The apostolic Tradition, transmitted by the Fathers and the councils, confirms this doctrine. The Council Vatican I (1870), in Pastor Aeternus, links indefectibility to infallibility: “The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter in order that through His revelation they might manifest a new doctrine: but in order that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation transmitted by the Apostles, or the deposit of faith.”
According to scholastic theology, indefectibility manifests itself in three principal aspects: in existence (in esse): the Church always subsists as a visible and hierarchical society; in teaching (in docere): the Church cannot err in faith; in action (in agere): the Church remains holy in its means of sanctification.
In time of prolonged crisis, such as the current vacancy of the See since 1964, indefectibility assures continuity by the jurisdiction of supply (canon 209 of the 1917 Code, applying to acts necessary for the salvation of souls in case of common error or probable doubt, both in the external and internal forum, without ever supplying the supreme and universal power of the Roman pontiff) and the role of faithful bishops, who maintain the universal ordinary magisterium and the sacraments. Historical examples of prolonged vacancy confirm this survival: the Great Western Vacancy (14th century) or the Arian crises, where the Church subsisted by bishops such as Saint Athanasius.
Thus, indefectibility excludes any total failure and guarantees that the visible and hierarchical Church perseveres until the consummation of the ages, even in prolonged sedevacance.
6: Historical and Canonical Analysis of the Case of Paul VI
6.1. 1963: Election and U.P.A.: Paul VI was elected on 21 June 1963 and accepted peacefully by the whole Church, which constitutes an infallible dogmatic fact confirming his initial legitimacy.
6.2. 1964: Public and Manifest Heresy and Loss of Office, Loss of All Jurisdiction, Cessation of Being in the Communion of the Church. On 21 November 1964, Paul VI promulgated the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium, which introduces a doctrine on episcopal collegiality directly contradicting the dogma defined by the Council Vatican I in Pastor Aeternus on the primacy and immediate jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff. This promulgation constitutes a public and manifest heresy. The loss of the papal office is then immediate and automatic (ipso facto), by the certain doctrinal principle attested by the bull of Paul IV and taught by common theology: the manifest heretic ceases to be a member of the Church and cannot be its visible head.
6.3. Immediate Resistance: From the conciliar sessions, the Coetus Internationalis Patrum, a group of faithful bishops, opposed resistance to the errors, thus breaking the peacefulness of the acceptance, constituting a historical index that the adherence was no longer “peaceful”.
It is a probable theological opinion that this resistance is an implicit declaration of vacancy.
6.4. 1964-1971: Period of Progressive Recognition: Between 1964 and 1971, resistance to the errors and legitimate disobedience in matters of faith spread among faithful Catholics, without the whole Church committing collective error. The human awareness of the vacancy was progressive. The first formal public declaration occurred in 1971 with the book of Father Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga, La Nueva Iglesia Montiniana, which concludes to the heresy of Paul VI and to the vacancy of the See.
6.5. Fidelity to the Bull and to the U.P.A.: The bull of Paul IV attests the certain doctrinal principle; the U.P.A. infallibly guarantees the initial legitimacy in 1963, but not post-heresy. The Church did not err: resistance proves the infallible non-adherence to the heretic.
7: Supplementary Arguments
7.1. The Visible Proximate Rule of Faith. The proximate rule of faith is the living Magisterium of the Church. This rule must be objectively visible, certain and free from error, so that all the faithful may adhere with certainty to the revealed truths. Saint Thomas teaches: “Una fides debet esse in tota Ecclesia… Quae unitas servari non posset si quaestio fidei orta… determinari non posset ab eo qui toti Ecclesiae praeest.” (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 1, a. 10.) (Translation: “There must be one faith in the whole Church… This unity could not be preserved if a question of faith that has arisen… could not be decided by him who presides over the whole Church.”)
Therefore, if a man remained truly pope while publicly teaching doctrines contrary to already defined dogmas, the proximate rule of faith would itself become equivocal and contradictory. The faithful could no longer know with certainty what they must believe. Such a hypothesis is incompatible with the very nature of theological faith and with the divine constitution of the Church. A public heretic cannot therefore remain the visible proximate rule of faith nor conserve the supreme authority in the Church.
7.2. The Formal Unity of the Church: The Catholic Church is formally constituted by the unity of faith, government and worship. This unity does not result from a simple external organization, but from the common profession of the same revealed faith and submission to the same legitimate authority.
Now the public heretic, having ceased to belong to the unity of faith, cannot be the formal principle of this unity. Saint Robert Bellarmine teaches: “Manifestus haereticus nullo modo est de Ecclesia.” (De Romano Pontifice, book II, chapter 30.) (Translation: “The manifest heretic is in no way a member of the Church.”)
A member separated from the body cannot be the head of the body from which he is separated. If the visible head publicly professed a doctrine incompatible with the Catholic faith, he would destroy by himself the unity that he is instituted to conserve. He could therefore no longer be the visible principle of the unity of the Church nor legitimately exercise supreme jurisdiction.
7.3. Impossibility of Two Contradictory Magisteria: It results from the preceding demonstration that one and the same Magisterium cannot teach contradictorily on the divine constitution of the Church. If Vatican II contradicts Vatican I on the subject of supreme jurisdiction, the authority that promulgated Vatican II cannot be identically the same magisterial authority as that which defined Pastor Aeternus.
7.5. Principle of the End of Authority: All authority is essentially ordered to the common good of the society of which it is the head. In the Church, this common good is the integral conservation of revealed faith. An authority that publicly destroys this common good acts against the essential end of its office. It therefore ceases to be proportionate to the function that Christ instituted to confirm his brethren in the faith (Luke 22:32).
7.6. Visibility and Formal Continuity of the Church: If Paul VI remained pope after having publicly promulgated doctrines contrary to defined faith, the visible Church would have officially changed its doctrine. Now the Church is formally constituted by the continuity of the same faith, the same government and the same worship. An authority that conserves the visible structures while modifying the doctrinal substance cannot therefore be the formal authority of the Catholic Church. The only explanation compatible with indefectibility is the vacancy of the See.
7.7. Impossibility of an Officially Non-Binding Magisterium: Paul VI promulgated Lumen Gentium as a dogmatic constitution. Now a pope cannot officially promulgate, in the name of the universal Church, a doctrinal teaching that would be simply “pastoral” and non-normative in matters of faith and ecclesiology. The official qualification of the act necessarily engages the magisterial authority. Therefore, if the teaching is erroneous, the authority that issues it cannot be the formal Catholic authority.
7.9. Burden of Proof: In natural law as in canon law the Roman principle applies: “Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat” (The burden of proof falls on him who affirms, not on him who denies). Those who maintain that a public heretic remains pope must therefore demonstrate, by an explicit text of Scripture, of the Magisterium or of common theology, that there exists an exception to the principle constantly taught according to which the manifest heretic ceases to be a member of the Church and cannot be its head. In default of such proof, the common doctrine remains fully applicable.
7.10. Against the Objection of the Absence of a Declaration: It is false to claim that a declaration of the Church would be necessary for the loss of office to occur. The declaration is declarative and not constitutive. It constatates a fact already accomplished in divine law. The absence of a declaration therefore in no way prevents the real vacancy of the See.
8: Refutation of Counter-Arguments
The Church did not err in its overall discernment: the immediate and growing resistance of faithful Catholics to the promulgated errors proves precisely the infallible non-adherence to the heretic, thus preserving the divine indefectibility promised by Christ. This resistance, far from being a schism, constitutes a legitimate act of fidelity to the immutable apostolic doctrine, breaking the peacefulness of the acceptance without introducing collective error into the true Church, which subsists in the members attached to the integral faith. Indefectibility is fully preserved, because the visible and hierarchical Church continues by the jurisdiction of supply and the ordinary magisterium of faithful bishops in this sense that these faithful bishops conserve and transmit the revealed deposit.
Any objection founded on a pretended necessity of a constitutive declaration ignores that the loss is already accomplished in divine law; the declaration is only constatative.
Conclusion
Paul VI was recognized as legitimate pope in 1963 by the Universal Peaceful Acceptance, infallible sign of his initial validity according to certain Catholic doctrine. However, by his public and obstinate promulgation of public and manifest heretical doctrines, notably in Lumen Gentium on 21 November 1964, he lost ipso facto the papal office according to the certain doctrinal principle attested by the bull of Paul IV and taught by common theology (Saint Robert Bellarmine). This loss is ontological as regards the subject of jurisdiction and automatic in divine law: the manifest heretic ceases to be a member of the Church and cannot be its visible head. From that moment, the resistance of faithful Catholics constituted a negative sign of non-adherence and an implicit indication of the vacancy of the See, breaking the peacefulness without collective error of the Church. The formal and public recognition of this vacancy was progressive, culminating with the declarations of Father Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga in 1971. Thus, the Church preserved its indefectibility, its visibility and its unity in the faithful attached to the immutable apostolic doctrine.
Let us pray for the Church.