Date of the first heresy of a pope

Of the heretical proposition promulgated

on 21 November 1964

 

Table of contents

 

1. Terms of the thesis

 

2. The major: the dogma

 

3. The minor: the promulgated propositions

 

4. The contradiction

 

5. Objections and responses

 

5.1 Objection 1: the Council of Trent

 

5.2 Objection 2: the virtue of these means comes from the Catholic Church

 

5.3 Objection 3: the Catholic Church remains the “general means of salvation”

 

5.4 Objection 4: invincible ignorance

 

5.5 Objection 5: the “subsistit in” (“subsists in”) is read in an orthodox manner

 

5.6 Objection 6: the earlier discourses

 

5.7 Objection 7: the Commission speaks of the grace of well-disposed persons

 

6. The consequence for the office

 

7. Conclusion

 

8. Sources

 

 

 

 

1. Terms of the thesis

 

We do not affirm that a pope or Giovanni Battista Montini never said anything erroneous before this date. We affirm the following:

 

21 November 1964 is the first time that a pope, namely Paul VI, promulgated, in an act addressed to the universal Church and clothed with the authority he claimed, a proposition contrary to a dogma of divine and Catholic faith. It is therefore not just any error but a heresy.

 

On that day, he promulgated the constitution Lumen Gentium and the decree Unitatis Redintegratio, signed “Ego PAULUS Catholicae Ecclesiae Episcopus” (“I, Paul, bishop of the Catholic Church”; Acta Apostolicae Sedis, t. 57, 1965, p. 67 and 107). The decree concludes with these words: “by virtue of the apostolic power that We hold from Christ […] We approve, decree and establish them in the Holy Spirit” (Unitatis Redintegratio, final formula; Latin text: AAS 57, 1965, p. 107). The propositions in question are those of Unitatis Redintegratio 3. Lumen Gentium 8 provides the ecclesiological foundation for them.

 

We distinguish two degrees of certainty:

 

1. the contradiction between these propositions and the dogma, which we hold to be demonstrated by the texts themselves;

 

2. the consequence for the person and the office of their author, which is a rigorous theological conclusion drawn from certain principles.

 

2. The major: the dogma

 

The Fourth Lateran Council defines: “Una vero est fidelium universalis Ecclesia, extra quam nullus omnino salvatur” — “There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which absolutely no one is saved” (constitution Firmiter; Dz 430 / DS 802).

 

The Council of Florence, in Cantate Domino, defines that no heretic or schismatic outside the Catholic Church can have a share in eternal life. It further specifies the role of the sacraments: the unity of the ecclesiastical body has such value “ut solum in ea manentibus ad salutem ecclesiastica sacramenta proficiant” — “such that the sacraments of the Church profit unto salvation only for those who remain in this unity” (Dz 714 / DS 1351).

 

Pius IX recalls that this doctrine is to be held “ex fide”, “of faith” (Singulari quadam, 9 December 1854; Dz 1647; Pustet collection, 1865, p. 80). He condemns the proposition according to which men would find the way of salvation in the worship of any religion (Syllabus, prop. 16; Dz 1716 / DS 2916; Pustet collection, 1865, p. 10).

 

Florence therefore does not limit itself to saying that one is not saved outside the Church. It says where the sacraments profit unto salvation: solely in the unity of the Church.

 

Saint Augustine had fixed this doctrine against the Donatists. The baptism of the Church can exist outside its limits, but the gift of the blessed life is found only within, just as the rivers of Paradise flow beyond its borders without carrying its beatitude there (De baptismo, lib. 4, chap. 1, n° 1; CSEL 51, p. 223). Everything that men have which belongs to the Church profits them nothing for salvation outside the Church (lib. 4, chap. 17, n° 24; CSEL 51, p. 250–251).

 

3. The minor: the promulgated propositions

 

Unitatis Redintegratio 3 contains two distinct propositions.

 

First proposition. The separated Churches and communities themselves (“ipsae Ecclesiae et Communitates seiunctae”) are by no means devoid of significance and value in the mystery of salvation, for the Spirit of Christ does not refuse to make use of them “tamquam salutis mediis”, “as means of salvation” (Unitatis Redintegratio, n° 3; AAS 57, 1965, p. 93). In the official French translation, the pronoun is unambiguous: the Spirit makes use of them, that is, of the Churches and communities, as means of salvation.

 

Second proposition. The sacred actions performed among the separated brethren “can certainly effectively produce the life of grace, and it must be acknowledged that they give access to the communion of salvation” (Unitatis Redintegratio, n° 3; Latin text: AAS 57, 1965, p. 93).

 

The subject of these propositions is not an individual soul. They are the separated communities and the acts of their worship, designated as such. The report of the Doctrinal Commission says so in so many words: “Elementa quae enumerantur non tantum individuos respiciunt, sed etiam communitates; in hoc praecise situm est principium motionis oecumenicae” — “The elements enumerated do not concern only individuals, but also communities; it is precisely in this that the principle of the ecumenical movement resides” (Acta Synodalia, vol. 3, part 1, p. 204, relation on n° 15 of the schema De Ecclesia, D). The Commission therefore acknowledges that the very principle of ecumenism resides in the attribution of these elements to the communities.

 

The same Commission expressly links the action of the Holy Spirit among the separated to the “sacred actions” of the schema on ecumenism, “quia Spiritus Sanctus per actiones sacras operatur”, “because the Holy Spirit acts through the sacred actions” (ibid., p. 205, I). It also specifies that it had deleted the words “non solum […] intra Catholicam”, “not only […] within the Catholic Church”, in order to obtain a simply positive assertion, and judges it useless to insist on the opposition “intra” and “extra”, “within” and “without” (ibid., p. 205, H). The erasure of this opposition is deliberate.

 

Lumen Gentium 8 lays the foundation for these propositions. By substituting “subsistit in” (“subsists in”) for “est” (“is”), it affirms that elements of sanctification and truth are found outside the structure of the Catholic Church, as “dona Ecclesiae Christi propria”, “gifts proper to the Church of Christ” (Lumen Gentium, n° 8; AAS 57, 1965, p. 11–12).

 

4. The contradiction

 

Florence affirms that the sacraments profit unto salvation only for those who remain in the unity of the Church. Unitatis Redintegratio affirms that communities which are not in this unity are, as communities, means of salvation, and that their sacred actions give access to the communion of salvation.

 

If these propositions are true, means of salvation profit unto salvation outside the unity of the Church, and the definition of Florence is false. The definition of Florence being of faith, the propositions of 1964 are contrary to the faith.

 

Saint Augustine had said it in express terms: baptism does not profit the one who is baptized in heresy or schism (De baptismo, lib. 4, chap. 4, n° 5; CSEL 51, p. 226–227). What the decree says of the sacred actions of the separated is the direct negation of this doctrine.

 

5. Objections and responses

 

5.1 Objection 1: the Council of Trent

 

The Council of Trent defines that baptism conferred by a heretic, with the required form and intention, is a true baptism (session 7, De baptismo, can. 4; Dz 860 / DS 1617). It also defines that the sacraments confer grace on those who place no obstacle (session 7, De sacramentis in genere, can. 6; Dz 849 / DS 1606). There therefore exist sanctifying goods among the separated.

 

Response. Trent defines the validity of the sacrament, not its fruit for the salvation of the one who remains in separation. Florence settles precisely the question of the fruit: the sacraments profit unto salvation only in the unity of the Church. Trent and Florence therefore agree, and it is Unitatis Redintegratio that departs from both.

 

Saint Augustine, whom Trent in no way contradicts, teaches it expressly: it is one thing not to have the sacrament, another to have it uselessly (De baptismo, lib. 4, chap. 17, n° 24; CSEL 51, p. 250–251). Baptism conferred in heresy or schism does not profit the one who receives it (lib. 4, chap. 4, n° 5; CSEL 51, p. 226–227). What was possessed without profit outside unity begins to profit only by reconciliation with unity (lib. 1, chap. 1, n° 2; CSEL 51, p. 145–146). Augustine even grants to Cyprian that the one who is baptized among heretics derives no profit from it, insofar as he shares their perversity (lib. 3, chap. 10, n° 13; CSEL 51, p. 204–205).

 

As for the child baptized by a heretic, by baptism he is constituted a person in the Church of Christ (Code of 1917, can. 87; official edition, p. 24). He belongs to the Catholic Church, not to the sect, as long as he does not personally adhere to the heresy. The grace he receives operates in the Church. It does not make the sect a means of salvation.

 

5.2 Objection 2: the virtue of these means comes from the Catholic Church

 

The decree adds that the virtue of these means derives from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church (Unitatis Redintegratio, n° 3; AAS 57, 1965, p. 93). It therefore attributes nothing to the separated as their own.

 

Response. Saint Augustine treated exactly this case, and his response separates what the decree confuses: the goods of the Church and the communities that hold them.

 

He teaches that, when the Church has something of itself in the separated communions, it is she who generates there, and not these communions: it is not their separation that generates, but what they have retained of the essence of the Church (De baptismo, lib. 1, chap. 10, n° 14; CSEL 51, p. 158–160). He calls these communions the handmaids (ancillae) of the Church, in whose womb the Church gives birth. The image is that of Hagar, whom Saint Paul opposes to Sarah: a slave, who is not the wife, who has no right over the goods she holds, and who must be cast out: “Cast out the bondwoman and her son” (Gal 4:30). Augustine qualifies the separation as manifest sacrilege. Those who, born of the bondwoman, cling to her through pride are like Ishmael and do not inherit; only those who peacefully love the legitimate wife inherit, like the sons of Jacob born of the handmaids (De baptismo, lib. 1, chap. 10, n° 14; CSEL 51, p. 160).

 

What comes from unity therefore has no efficacy for the salvation of those who remain in separation, unless they return to unity (lib. 4, chap. 2, n° 2; CSEL 51, p. 223). Just as the rivers of Paradise flow beyond its limits without carrying its beatitude there, the baptism of the Church can exist outside, but the gift of the blessed life is found only within (lib. 4, chap. 1, n° 1; CSEL 51, p. 223).

 

The decree inverts this doctrine. Augustine keeps the goods of the Church and condemns the community that holds them; Unitatis Redintegratio attributes to the communities themselves “significance and value in the mystery of salvation” and says that the Spirit makes use of them. Augustine distinguishes Ishmael and the sons of Jacob; the decree speaks of the communities as a bloc, and the Commission deliberately erased the opposition “intra” and “extra”, “within” and “without” (Acta Synodalia, vol. 3, part 1, p. 205, H). For Augustine, one must leave the handmaid and return to the wife; for the Commission, the attribution of these elements to the communities is the very principle of the ecumenical movement (ibid., p. 204, D).

 

That the virtue of these means derives from the Catholic Church therefore does not save the proposition. Augustine affirmed it too, but in order to conclude that the separated community has no part in it.

 

5.3 Objection 3: the Catholic Church remains the “general means of salvation”

 

The same paragraph teaches that it is through the Catholic Church alone, “general means of salvation”, that the entire fullness of the means of salvation is obtained (Unitatis Redintegratio, n° 3; AAS 57, 1965, p. 94).

 

Response. To reserve to the Catholic Church the fullness of the means of salvation is to affirm that a part of these means is found outside her and operates there for salvation. The phrase therefore does not correct the incriminated proposition: it presupposes it.

 

5.4 Objection 4: invincible ignorance

 

Pius IX admits the salvation of those who, in invincible ignorance, observe the natural law and respond to grace (Quanto conficiamur moerore, 10 August 1863; Dz 1677 / DS 2866; Pustet collection, 1865, p. 144).

 

Response. Pius IX speaks of persons, not of societies. If these souls are saved, it is by a grace that unites them to the one Church, and despite their material belonging to a sect. In this case, the sect is not a means of salvation, but an obstacle that is overcome. One cannot invoke an exception relative to persons in order to found a proposition relative to communities.

 

5.5 Objection 5: the “subsistit in” (“subsists in”) is read in an orthodox manner

 

The change from “est” (“is”) to “subsistit in” (“subsists in”) in Lumen Gentium 8 could mean that the Church of Christ is found fully in the Catholic Church.

 

Response. The acts of the council show that the change was deliberate and doctrinal: “loco ‘est’ […] dicitur ‘subsistit in’, ut expressio melius concordet cum affirmatione de elementis ecclesialibus quae alibi adsunt” — “In place of ‘is’, one says ‘subsists in’, so that the expression may better agree with the affirmation concerning the ecclesial elements which are present elsewhere” (Acta Synodalia, vol. 3, part 1, p. 177). The following page specifies that the structure from which these elements are said to be exterior is visible: “extra compaginem”, “outside the structure”, “quae per definitionem est visibilis”, “which is visible by definition” (ibid., p. 178). The “subsistit in”, “subsists in”, was therefore chosen in order to leave room for ecclesial elements outside the visible Catholic Church.

 

Pius XII had taught that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are “unum idemque”, “one and the same thing” (Humani Generis, 12 August 1950; AAS 42, 1950, p. 571). But our demonstration does not rest on Lumen Gentium 8 alone. It rests on Unitatis Redintegratio 3, promulgated the same day, which draws the explicit consequence of this change.

 

5.6 Objection 6: the earlier discourses

 

Paul VI had already spoken of the separated before this date: at Bethlehem on 6 January 1964 (discourse of Bethlehem), and at the opening of the 3rd session on 14 September 1964 (Acta Synodalia, vol. 3, part 1, p. 150). The date of 21 November would therefore not be the first.

 

Response. These discourses speak of Christians “who are not in perfect communion” or separated from the full visible integrity of the Mystical Body. They describe a situation, which pre-1962 theology could do concerning baptized material heretics. They do not attribute to the separated communities the quality of means of salvation. Neither are they acts promulgated for the universal Church. According to the terms set in point 1, 21 November 1964 remains the first occurrence.

 

5.7 Objection 7: the Commission speaks of the grace of well-disposed persons

 

The report on Lumen Gentium 15 explains that the “vera quaedam coniunctio”, “a certain true union”, designates the sanctifying grace that the Holy Spirit produces “in christianis non-catholicis bene dispositis”, “in well-disposed non-Catholic Christians” (Acta Synodalia, vol. 3, part 1, p. 205, G). It would therefore concern persons, not communities.

 

Response. This passage concerns the grace received by persons, not the function attributed to the communities. On this second point, the same relation is explicit: the elements enumerated also regard the communities, and it is precisely there that the principle of the ecumenical movement resides (ibid., p. 204, D). The Commission adds that the Holy Spirit operates through the “sacred actions” of which the schema on ecumenism speaks (ibid., p. 205, I). The two affirmations coexist in the text, and it is the second that we incriminate.

 

6. The consequence for the office

 

The heresy is public: it figures in an act promulgated for the universal Church and published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

 

Pertinacity is presumed in the external forum: “Posita externa legis violatione, dolus in foro externo praesumitur, donec contrarium probetur” — “An external violation of the law being posited, dolus is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proved” (Code of 1917, can. 2200 § 2; official edition, p. 413). No retraction has intervened. A prelate formed in the Curia under Pius XII could not have been ignorant of the definition of Florence.

 

The danger had moreover been signalled during the drafting. Fathers feared that the overly positive tenor of the text might confirm the non-Catholics in their non-Catholicism (“ne tenor nimis positivus acatholicos in suo acatholicismo firmet”, “lest an overly positive tenor confirm the non-Catholics in their non-Catholicism”); the Commission replied that this fear did not appear well-founded (Acta Synodalia, vol. 3, part 1, p. 203, relation on n° 15 of the schema De Ecclesia, A). The text was promulgated in knowledge of this objection.

 

Saint Robert Bellarmine teaches that the manifest heretical Pope ceases of himself to be Pope (De Romano Pontifice, lib. 2, chap. 30; Disputationum de controversiis, t. 1, Naples, Josephus Giuliano, 1856, p. 420). Canon 188, 4° of the Code of 1917 (official edition, p. 41) declares vacant without declaration every office of him who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith.

 

7. Conclusion

 

The contradiction between Unitatis Redintegratio 3 and the definition of Florence is established by the texts themselves. The acts of the council confirm that it is willed: the “subsistit in”, “subsists in”, was chosen in order to make room for the ecclesial elements present elsewhere, the attribution of these elements to the communities was posited as the very principle of ecumenism, and the opposition between “intra” and “extra”, “within” and “without” was deliberately erased. The objections drawn from Trent, from the origin of the virtue of the sacraments, from the “fullness” reserved to the Catholic Church, from Pius IX, from the earlier discourses and from the grace of well-disposed persons do not lift it. Saint Augustine had already refuted the principal ones against the Donatists.

 

It follows, according to the principles of Saint Robert Bellarmine, of the Code of 1917 and of the indefectibility of the faith of Peter, that 21 November 1964 marks the first heresy promulgated by Paul VI for the universal Church and that by that very fact he lost his office of pope.

 

The development of the question of the loss of the papacy by public heresy is treated in other chapters of this book.

 

Let us all pray every day to obtain from God holy Popes.

 

8. Sources

 

Fourth Lateran Council, constitution Firmiter, Latin text; Dz 430 / DS 802.

 

Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, Latin text; Dz 714 / DS 1351.

 

Council of Trent, session 7, canons De sacramentis in genere, can. 6, Dz 849 / DS 1606; canons De baptismo, can. 4, Dz 860 / DS 1617. Latin texts.

 

Vatican Council, dogmatic constitution Pastor aeternus, chap. 4, Latin text; Dz 1837 / DS 3071.

 

Pius IX, Singulari quadam, 9 December 1854; Quanto conficiamur moerore, 10 August 1863; Syllabus, proposition 16. Latin texts in Sanctissimi D. N. Pii PP. IX Epistola encyclica data die VIII Decembris MDCCCLXIV ad omnes catholicos antistites unacum Syllabo praecipuorum aetatis nostrae errorum et actis pontificiis ex quibus excerptus est Syllabus, Ratisbon, Friedrich Pustet, 1865, respectively p. 80, 144–145 and 10.

 

Augustine, De baptismo libri septem, in Scripta contra Donatistas, part 1, ed. Michael Petschenig, Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol. 51, Vienna, F. Tempsky; Leipzig, G. Freytag, 1908, Latin text, p. 145–146, 158–160, 204–205, 223, 226–227 and 250–251.

 

Augustine, On Baptism, English translation in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1st series, vol. 4, under the direction of Philip Schaff; lib. 4, chap. 4, n° 6, and chap. 17, n° 25.

 

Pius XII, Humani generis, 12 August 1950, Latin text, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, t. 42, 1950, p. 571.

 

Paul VI, discourse at Bethlehem, 6 January 1964, French text; discourse at the opening of the 3rd conciliar period, 14 September 1964, Latin text, Acta Synodalia, vol. 3, part 1, p. 150.

 

Lumen gentium, 21 November 1964, n° 8 and final formula, Latin text, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, t. 57, 1965, p. 11–12 and 67. Unitatis redintegratio, 21 November 1964, n° 3 and final formula, Latin text, ibid., p. 93–94 and 107; official French translation.

 

Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II, vol. 3, period 3, part 1, Sessio publica 4, Congregationes generales 80–82, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1973, Latin text, p. 150, 177–178 and 203–205.

 

Codex Iuris Canonici, official edition, 1917, Latin text, can. 87, 188, 1556 and 2200, respectively p. 24, 41, 302 and 413.

 

Robert Bellarmine, Disputationum Roberti Bellarmini de controversiis christianae fidei adversus hujus temporis haereticos, t. 1, Naples, Josephus Giuliano, 1856, Latin text, De Romano Pontifice, lib. 2, chap. 30, p. 418–420, especially p. 420.

 

Thomas de Vio Cajetan, De comparatione auctoritatis Papae et Concilii cum Apologia eiusdem tractatus, in Scripta theologica, vol. 1, ed. Vincent M. J. Pollet, Rome, Institutum Angelicum, 1936, Latin text, chap. 20, n° 297, p. 132.

 

John of Saint-Thomas, Cursus theologici in Secundam Secundae D. Thomae, tomus unicus, Lyon, Philippe Borde, Laurent Arnaud, Pierre Borde and Guillaume Barbier, 1663, Latin text, disp. 8, art. 3, p. 133 and 138–139.

 

Sacred Scripture, Gal 4:30 and Lk 22:32; for this last passage, also Pastor aeternus, chap. 4.