CATHOLIC POSITIONS REGARDING A HERETICAL POPE - THREAD
(Refuting Sedevacantism)
Here I will list which positions have been defended within the Church and are licit for a Catholic to hold.
Notice how none of the positions correspond to the sedevacantist view, which is based upon a completely new thesis that was never defended in the history of the Church. Here, too, I will omit positions that are too minoritarian - such as that of John of Torquemada.
1 - THE POSITION OF ALBERT PIGHIUS
Pighius believed (Hierarchiae Ecclesiasticae, lib. 4, ch. 8) that no pope, even as a private doctor, would ever fall into heresy. Thus, defection of the faith would never serve as an impediment to receiving jurisdiction.
2 - THE THOMIST POSITION
The Thomist position has its basis in the teaching of Saint Thomas, but enunciated and properly defended for the first time by Cardinal Cajetan. The adherents of this thesis believe that there is no incompatibility between heresy and jurisdiction that there may be a heretical pope and in such a case, he needs to be deposed in a ministerial manner by a council.
This is the most common thesis in the Church and is so popular that it received not only the adherence of all Thomists (including St. Alphonsus), but even from many non-Thomists, such as the scotist Francisco Velasco O.F.M, and dissident Thomists, such as Francisco Suárez S.J.
"while the natural head must receive a vital influx of the soul before it can influence other members of the body, the moral head can ... exercise its jurisdiction over the Church, even if it does not receive an influx of inner faith ..." (Garrigou-Lagrange, De Christo Salvatore)
"The most common sentence is that Christ, by a special dispensation, for the common good and tranquillity of the Church, allows the heretical pontiff to maintain jurisdiction until deposed by the Church." (Billuart, Summa sancti Thomae hodiernis academiarum accommodata, De Fide)
“The pope who becomes a heretic is not deposed ipso facto neither by human law nor by divine law; the pope has no superior on earth; and if he deviates from the faith, he must be deposed.” (Cardinal Cajetan, De Comparatione Auctoritate Papae et Concilii)
“the Church can depose a Pontiff, as proven by Cajetan and Melchor Cano. But dispositive power is not in vain in the Church, nor can it be reduced to an act unless the Pontiff errs in faith.” (College of Salmanticenses, Cursus theologicus, De Fide, Disp. IV, Dub. 1, 7)
“If the Supreme Pontiff falls into heresy, he does not immediately fall from his pontifical dignity, but must be deposed by the Church ... This sentence is affirmed by Cajetan in the booklet by Auct. Pap. et Conc., 18.” (Domingo Báñez, Sch. Comm.)
"... the pope [who has fallen into heresy] needs to be suspended by men." (Domingo de Soto, In quart. Sent. Comm., Distinct. 22, q. 2, a.2)
"With the first heretical word he utters, he incurs a canonical excommunication. However, he is not ipso facto suspended by the heresy uttered ... a sentence is required instead." (Domingo de Soto, In Quart. Sent. Comm., Distinct. 22, q. 2, a.2)
"Therefore, only with this authority [Ecumenical Councils] can the Pontiff who has fallen into heresy be deposed." (Melchor Cano, De Locis Theo.)
"If he has not yet been declared deposed from his Chair, the faithful must listen to him and obey him because he still retains the power and jurisdiction." (John of St. Thomas, In II-IIae)
“Against this sentence, I affirm in the second place: in no case is the Pontiff also deprived of his dignity and power by God Himself without the prior judgment of men and sentence. To this day, this is the most common opinion, [defended by] Cajetan, Soto, Cano, Cordub.”
(Francisco Suarez, Opus de Triplice Virtute Theologica)
“I say in the third place: if the pope were heretical and incorrigible, ... by the declaratory sentence of the legitimate Church's jurisdiction over the crime he professed, he would cease to be pope. It is common among doctors.” (Francisco Suárez, Opus de Triplice Virtute Theol.)
(Refuting Sedevacantism)
Here I will list which positions have been defended within the Church and are licit for a Catholic to hold.
Notice how none of the positions correspond to the sedevacantist view, which is based upon a completely new thesis that was never defended in the history of the Church. Here, too, I will omit positions that are too minoritarian - such as that of John of Torquemada.
1 - THE POSITION OF ALBERT PIGHIUS
Pighius believed (Hierarchiae Ecclesiasticae, lib. 4, ch. 8) that no pope, even as a private doctor, would ever fall into heresy. Thus, defection of the faith would never serve as an impediment to receiving jurisdiction.
2 - THE THOMIST POSITION
The Thomist position has its basis in the teaching of Saint Thomas, but enunciated and properly defended for the first time by Cardinal Cajetan. The adherents of this thesis believe that there is no incompatibility between heresy and jurisdiction that there may be a heretical pope and in such a case, he needs to be deposed in a ministerial manner by a council.
This is the most common thesis in the Church and is so popular that it received not only the adherence of all Thomists (including St. Alphonsus), but even from many non-Thomists, such as the scotist Francisco Velasco O.F.M, and dissident Thomists, such as Francisco Suárez S.J.
"while the natural head must receive a vital influx of the soul before it can influence other members of the body, the moral head can ... exercise its jurisdiction over the Church, even if it does not receive an influx of inner faith ..." (Garrigou-Lagrange, De Christo Salvatore)
"The most common sentence is that Christ, by a special dispensation, for the common good and tranquillity of the Church, allows the heretical pontiff to maintain jurisdiction until deposed by the Church." (Billuart, Summa sancti Thomae hodiernis academiarum accommodata, De Fide)
“The pope who becomes a heretic is not deposed ipso facto neither by human law nor by divine law; the pope has no superior on earth; and if he deviates from the faith, he must be deposed.” (Cardinal Cajetan, De Comparatione Auctoritate Papae et Concilii)
“the Church can depose a Pontiff, as proven by Cajetan and Melchor Cano. But dispositive power is not in vain in the Church, nor can it be reduced to an act unless the Pontiff errs in faith.” (College of Salmanticenses, Cursus theologicus, De Fide, Disp. IV, Dub. 1, 7)
“If the Supreme Pontiff falls into heresy, he does not immediately fall from his pontifical dignity, but must be deposed by the Church ... This sentence is affirmed by Cajetan in the booklet by Auct. Pap. et Conc., 18.” (Domingo Báñez, Sch. Comm.)
"... the pope [who has fallen into heresy] needs to be suspended by men." (Domingo de Soto, In quart. Sent. Comm., Distinct. 22, q. 2, a.2)
"With the first heretical word he utters, he incurs a canonical excommunication. However, he is not ipso facto suspended by the heresy uttered ... a sentence is required instead." (Domingo de Soto, In Quart. Sent. Comm., Distinct. 22, q. 2, a.2)
"Therefore, only with this authority [Ecumenical Councils] can the Pontiff who has fallen into heresy be deposed." (Melchor Cano, De Locis Theo.)
"If he has not yet been declared deposed from his Chair, the faithful must listen to him and obey him because he still retains the power and jurisdiction." (John of St. Thomas, In II-IIae)
“Against this sentence, I affirm in the second place: in no case is the Pontiff also deprived of his dignity and power by God Himself without the prior judgment of men and sentence. To this day, this is the most common opinion, [defended by] Cajetan, Soto, Cano, Cordub.”
(Francisco Suarez, Opus de Triplice Virtute Theologica)
“I say in the third place: if the pope were heretical and incorrigible, ... by the declaratory sentence of the legitimate Church's jurisdiction over the crime he professed, he would cease to be pope. It is common among doctors.” (Francisco Suárez, Opus de Triplice Virtute Theol.)
"But nonetheless, the opposite sentence (to that of Belarmino [i.e., as we will see later, that if a pope becomes a heretic he automatically loses the jurisdiction]) is the most common among theologians." (F. Velasco, Subtilissimi Scoti Doctorum super tertium sententiarum)
"The authors [Gonet includes himself] who teach that the heretical pope is not deposed ipso facto from the pontifical dignity not only speak of occult heresy, but also of public heresy." (J. B. Gonet, Clypeus, Tract. XI, Disp. XIV, Art. II)
"The authors [Gonet includes himself] who teach that the heretical pope is not deposed ipso facto from the pontifical dignity not only speak of occult heresy, but also of public heresy." (J. B. Gonet, Clypeus, Tract. XI, Disp. XIV, Art. II)
This is the Thomistic thesis, held by every Dominican of note (and therefore a thomist) and the majority of non-Dominican thomists and dissident thomists, as we have proven. It is the majority opinion of the theologians, and being that which is based upon Saint Thomas Aquinas, by far the one most worthy of belief for any Catholic.
However, I shall further prove that the sedevacantes have lied and usurped Saint Robert Bellarmine, who in no way ever supported their ridiculous, heretical nonsense.
3 - THE VIEW OF ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE
"The fourth [reason for calling a council] is suspected of heresy in the Roman Pontiff ... The council must be called to depose the pope if he is a heretic." (De Conc. I, 9)
"others [in which he is included] consider that such a person [heretical pope] would fall ipso facto of the pontificate, such that there would be no deposition on the part of the Church, but a declaratory sentence on the vacancy of the see." (Card. Billot, Tractus de Ecclesia)
“(...)Conclusion:
The pope who is a manifest heretic, for this very reason, falls from his dignity, so the Church does not need to testify for this, but to declare him deposed.” (Theologia Scoti a prolixitate, vol. 4 Tract. II, Disp. II, q. I, art. 9)
No one in Church history has ever said that private theologians (priests, laymen, etc) have the jurisdiction or power to disobey the Pope’s jurisdiction and deny him due to heresy, but only after a visible deposition by the Church.
"The fourth [reason for calling a council] is suspected of heresy in the Roman Pontiff ... The council must be called to depose the pope if he is a heretic." (De Conc. I, 9)
"others [in which he is included] consider that such a person [heretical pope] would fall ipso facto of the pontificate, such that there would be no deposition on the part of the Church, but a declaratory sentence on the vacancy of the see." (Card. Billot, Tractus de Ecclesia)
“(...)Conclusion:
The pope who is a manifest heretic, for this very reason, falls from his dignity, so the Church does not need to testify for this, but to declare him deposed.” (Theologia Scoti a prolixitate, vol. 4 Tract. II, Disp. II, q. I, art. 9)
No one in Church history has ever said that private theologians (priests, laymen, etc) have the jurisdiction or power to disobey the Pope’s jurisdiction and deny him due to heresy, but only after a visible deposition by the Church.
What is the difference, speaking simply and plainly, between the two more common thesis - Cajetan’s and Bellarmine’s?
It is quite simple: Cajetan admits no opposition between heresy and jurisdiction; therefore, a Pope may remain a heretic and yet remain a Pope to the end of his days. He must, if the Church so decides, be deposed by a Council. There, at the moment of the Council declaring the sentence, by the power of Christ alone and not of the council which merely declares, the Pope would immediately cease to have his dignity.
And Bellarmine? He believes the deposition by Christ happens at once, at the moment of heresy manifest. However, as he shows plainly in his many treatises on civil and ecclesiastical power, this cannot be proven by individuals - it would be chaos in the Church, and schism. Therefore, although he admits that the Head parts with the Body by the power of Christ at the moment of heresy, he only admits true disobedience - that is to not recognise him as Pope - after the Church has declared it so through a Council, this for the sake and health of the Church and Her faithful.
It is quite simple: Cajetan admits no opposition between heresy and jurisdiction; therefore, a Pope may remain a heretic and yet remain a Pope to the end of his days. He must, if the Church so decides, be deposed by a Council. There, at the moment of the Council declaring the sentence, by the power of Christ alone and not of the council which merely declares, the Pope would immediately cease to have his dignity.
And Bellarmine? He believes the deposition by Christ happens at once, at the moment of heresy manifest. However, as he shows plainly in his many treatises on civil and ecclesiastical power, this cannot be proven by individuals - it would be chaos in the Church, and schism. Therefore, although he admits that the Head parts with the Body by the power of Christ at the moment of heresy, he only admits true disobedience - that is to not recognise him as Pope - after the Church has declared it so through a Council, this for the sake and health of the Church and Her faithful.
So here we have plainly and concisely explained all there is to the matter at hand regarding solely the case of a heretical Pope - those who usurp Saint Bellarmine and seek to cherry pick one of his quotes without fully understanding his entire theological treatise (often without having even read him at all!) must immediately cease their usurpation, for theirs is a half truth more detrimental and sinful than a lie plainly told, and give great scandal who use such a Saint for their unsaintly and uncatholic behaviour as is with the sedevacantes.
↟ Modernists Go To Hell ↟
I have already dealt with this issue on twitter and I shall now transcribe it here to, YET AGAIN, prove that not only is sedevacantism incorrect, it is found NOWHERE in the old theologians, who all prescribe a far different course of action regarding a heretical…
Go sub to @KnightAtlantic or you’re a faggot
Lastly, touching upon a quite singular and thoroughly heretical belief of many sedevacantes (which I do not know if these people RC was arguing with hold, but I shall certainly enjoy the time to refute), it is their unique belief that Vatican I was wrong. How so?
Allow me to explain. The run-of-the-mill blog sedevacante will quote Cum Ex Apostolatus (not realising it’s not an infallible dogma but at most a disciplinary conclave law of 500 years past) and say any Pope who even so much as thinks heresy is deposed. These are not be taken seriously and merit little attention. There are however others; those who claim that the Pope used his INFALLIBLE POWERS during Vatican II, but Vatican II was bad, therefore the Pope cannot be Pope because he tried to use his INFALLIBLE POWERS and instead created error.
This is a most grave heresy, and it completely undermines the Magisterium and Infallibility itself - for now infallibility is at the hands of judgment of the private faithful, who may by their own power somehow judge a dogma. No, this is senseless heresy. A Pope cannot be wrong in his use of infallible powers - that is the definition of Vatican I and it must be absolutely taken a priori. What does this mean? That if sedevacantes TRULY BELIEVE that Pope Paul VI used his INFALLIBLE POWERS at Vatican II, they are bound by the most sacred dogmas of the Catholic Faith to UPHOLD and FOLLOW Vatican II. This is the only internally coherent system for the sedevacante. For a Pope to possibly err in the use of infallible powers, he cannot have been Pope at all - so much is what the great John of Saint Thomas says, pronouncing after Cajetan that a Pope may fall into heresy indeed, but would absolutely retain his dignity and power and could NOT IN ANY TIME use his infallible powers for error. Hence we have proven by simple logic and the citation of theologians that the sedevacante belief of using infallible powers for error (and only then losing the papacy) is heretical and likewise contrary to the theologians.
Allow me to explain. The run-of-the-mill blog sedevacante will quote Cum Ex Apostolatus (not realising it’s not an infallible dogma but at most a disciplinary conclave law of 500 years past) and say any Pope who even so much as thinks heresy is deposed. These are not be taken seriously and merit little attention. There are however others; those who claim that the Pope used his INFALLIBLE POWERS during Vatican II, but Vatican II was bad, therefore the Pope cannot be Pope because he tried to use his INFALLIBLE POWERS and instead created error.
This is a most grave heresy, and it completely undermines the Magisterium and Infallibility itself - for now infallibility is at the hands of judgment of the private faithful, who may by their own power somehow judge a dogma. No, this is senseless heresy. A Pope cannot be wrong in his use of infallible powers - that is the definition of Vatican I and it must be absolutely taken a priori. What does this mean? That if sedevacantes TRULY BELIEVE that Pope Paul VI used his INFALLIBLE POWERS at Vatican II, they are bound by the most sacred dogmas of the Catholic Faith to UPHOLD and FOLLOW Vatican II. This is the only internally coherent system for the sedevacante. For a Pope to possibly err in the use of infallible powers, he cannot have been Pope at all - so much is what the great John of Saint Thomas says, pronouncing after Cajetan that a Pope may fall into heresy indeed, but would absolutely retain his dignity and power and could NOT IN ANY TIME use his infallible powers for error. Hence we have proven by simple logic and the citation of theologians that the sedevacante belief of using infallible powers for error (and only then losing the papacy) is heretical and likewise contrary to the theologians.
As it has always been since the very closing days of Vatican II, and remains to this day the point of contention for the SSPX and the point of study of their priests, the issue is: WHAT AUTHORITY WAS USED AT VATICAN II? It was not infallible, this much is the consensus of both the neo-cons (Ratzinger and Co) and the SSPX. In fact, the theological studies reveal something far more shocking - the Pope did not use his authority at all during Vatican II. This has been painstakingly proven by the good priest Fr. Álvaro Calderón of the La Reja Seminary of the SSPX in Argentina, and I shall now share a hasty online translation of one of his speeches on the subject:
↟ Modernists Go To Hell ↟
Lastly, touching upon a quite singular and thoroughly heretical belief of many sedevacantes (which I do not know if these people RC was arguing with hold, but I shall certainly enjoy the time to refute), it is their unique belief that Vatican I was wrong.…
If a Pope were to ever try and use his infallible powers to pronounce heresy or error he would be stopped from doing so before the pronouncement by Christ himself. Divine intervention is something allot of people miss when speaking about Vatican I and the Relatio. A Pope cannot do such a thing, it is simply impossible. If you seriously think that a Pope can infallibly declare something to be “dogma” which is in fact heretical, go read the Relatio.
You see this? This is Catholic theology, where distinctions are made and logic is used. A far cry from the rattling houses of sedevacantism which cannot even be bothered to quote correctly the theologians - but this matter I shall leave for another day, as I have sufficiently bruised the pride of sedevacantes and destroyed their heretical ideas, for now.
↟ Modernists Go To Hell ↟
You see this? This is Catholic theology, where distinctions are made and logic is used. A far cry from the rattling houses of sedevacantism which cannot even be bothered to quote correctly the theologians - but this matter I shall leave for another day, as…
It is just like arguing with the Orthodox about Thomism and VI.
↟ Modernists Go To Hell ↟
As it has always been since the very closing days of Vatican II, and remains to this day the point of contention for the SSPX and the point of study of their priests, the issue is: WHAT AUTHORITY WAS USED AT VATICAN II? It was not infallible, this much is…
Fr. Hesse has already dealt with this too. Someone who the sedevecantists fear greatly.
↟ Modernists Go To Hell ↟
“Who created God?” Justin Brierly gives a simple explanation.
What he’s referring to here can only be articulated thoroughly with respect to Divine Simplicity and the recognition of a real distinction between essence and existence in creatures, and between creator and creature. If God were not His essence and existence, or subsistent being itself, that is, that which is the fullness of being itself, then all creatures would be absolutely one.
Everything that begins to exist in times needs a cause. God never began to exist since He is His existence and essence, and is what it means to be itself. What he’s pointing at here is precisely to this, that the further and further you go back, the more you arrive at the conclusion that we needed an Absolutely divine and self-sufficient God to bring us into existence. The creator-creature distinction is also a good argument for His existence. Along with the teleological, cosmological and moral arguments.
Contingent things all need an explanation for their own existence, that is, a infinitely transcendent being that first brought these things into existence. This is the crux of the argument for the proving of the principle of sufficient reason (PSR).
Another thing to note is that without this distinction, Gods absoluteness, self-sufficency, eternality, simplicity, individibility, infinitude, etc. could not be predicated differently creaturely finitude and being. God is Being itself, and subsists in Himself. This isn’t the case with creatures. Nor are creatures quiddities identical to their esse. When we refer to existence too, it is important to recognise that existence (esse) refers that which is and already exists. Essence (essentia) refers to whatness, or precisely, that by which the thing is what it is.
If God was created that would imply some sort of composition in God, a sense of potency. Which would mean that these parts’ existence is that by which a specific being, namely here, God, depends upon for its existence. Hinting at some sort of ontological priorness pertaining to composition. Now, he we arrive at the fact that God is pure actuality. A very important part of comprehending *in a sense* His essence and existence, along with Him being subsistent being itself (ipsum esse subsistens).
Here we arrive at the conclusion that if esse and essentia are really distinct in each creature the only explanation for its esse is either that it was caused by the essence or it came to the creature from an “extrinsic principle”, in which we call God. Something that is pure act with no potency to become something it is not, or was not at one point. This is precisely how we make sense of the distinction, which, in turn, furthers the proof for the existence of God.
Since God’s being is completely in act, there can be nothing potential or limiting within it. Potentiality or composition in God implies that ability to change and thus limiting God’s mode of being and from doing some certain thing. Since potency simply means that which can exist or has the potential to, and doesn’t actually exist. It needs to come to be, meaning it once was not, and therefore, created.
Everything that begins to exist in times needs a cause. God never began to exist since He is His existence and essence, and is what it means to be itself. What he’s pointing at here is precisely to this, that the further and further you go back, the more you arrive at the conclusion that we needed an Absolutely divine and self-sufficient God to bring us into existence. The creator-creature distinction is also a good argument for His existence. Along with the teleological, cosmological and moral arguments.
Contingent things all need an explanation for their own existence, that is, a infinitely transcendent being that first brought these things into existence. This is the crux of the argument for the proving of the principle of sufficient reason (PSR).
Another thing to note is that without this distinction, Gods absoluteness, self-sufficency, eternality, simplicity, individibility, infinitude, etc. could not be predicated differently creaturely finitude and being. God is Being itself, and subsists in Himself. This isn’t the case with creatures. Nor are creatures quiddities identical to their esse. When we refer to existence too, it is important to recognise that existence (esse) refers that which is and already exists. Essence (essentia) refers to whatness, or precisely, that by which the thing is what it is.
If God was created that would imply some sort of composition in God, a sense of potency. Which would mean that these parts’ existence is that by which a specific being, namely here, God, depends upon for its existence. Hinting at some sort of ontological priorness pertaining to composition. Now, he we arrive at the fact that God is pure actuality. A very important part of comprehending *in a sense* His essence and existence, along with Him being subsistent being itself (ipsum esse subsistens).
Here we arrive at the conclusion that if esse and essentia are really distinct in each creature the only explanation for its esse is either that it was caused by the essence or it came to the creature from an “extrinsic principle”, in which we call God. Something that is pure act with no potency to become something it is not, or was not at one point. This is precisely how we make sense of the distinction, which, in turn, furthers the proof for the existence of God.
Since God’s being is completely in act, there can be nothing potential or limiting within it. Potentiality or composition in God implies that ability to change and thus limiting God’s mode of being and from doing some certain thing. Since potency simply means that which can exist or has the potential to, and doesn’t actually exist. It needs to come to be, meaning it once was not, and therefore, created.
↟ Modernists Go To Hell ↟
What he’s referring to here can only be articulated thoroughly with respect to Divine Simplicity and the recognition of a real distinction between essence and existence in creatures, and between creator and creature. If God were not His essence and existence…
To be honest, I was quite surprised that he only used some eh wording toward the end and didn’t mess up at all really. Pretty rare coming from some random British dude on tiktok who I have no knowledge of lol.
The Thomistic ontological and cosmological arguments are superior.