Suarez on what to do if the Pope falls into heresy…
By: Athanasius Contra Mundum
For some time the question of the loss of
papal office has been of interest to certain segments of
Traditionalism. One of the many “Francis-effects” we could speak of,
however, is that this question has gone mainstream due to the Pontiff’s
many gaffes or statements that at least leave one scratching their head
to figure it out, even amongst some conservatives who are not Traditionalists.
De Fide, Disputation X, de Summo Pontifice. Translated by Ryan Grant
Section. 6
Whether One Who is a True Pope Should
Necessarily Exist as Such While he Lives; or Whether he Could Fall from
the Papal Dignity for Some Reason.
- The First Assertion is Proven from Law.
I say firstly that the Pope can lay aside the dignity of his own will. It is defined thus,[1]
and at times it has happened which is clear from history; but there can
be a controversy on whether it would be fitting for him to await the
consensus of the Church, or at least the Cardinals in order that his
renunciation might be valid. Certainly this question pertains more to
canonists than to us, still I do not think it is necessary. For the
Pontiff teaches in the above citation simply that he can freely resign;
and also because while other it is not valid for other bishops or
prelates to freely resign their charge because they have the Pope for a
superior, they ought to await his consent. But the Pope has no such
superior; and therefore just as he was established without a superior,
so let him renounce without a superior, as Glossa says in De Renuntiatione.
- A Dubium, in which it is argued for the negative side – The Affirming Opinion o Others – Their Foundation – Firstly Confirmed – Secondly Confirmed from the Fathers – Confirmed from Reason
 |
| Francisco Suarez, S.J. “Doctor Eximius” |
A special question is whether the Pope
could be deprived against his will, because it does not appear he may be
deprived by someone; he is never deposed immediately by God, since
there is no ordinary divine law on the matter, nor should it be
considered that God would do it by some extraordinary manner. Again, it
seems he cannot be deposed from the pontificate by any man, because the
Pope does not have an earthly superior.[2]
The opinions are heaped up on this matter, in each manner on account of
the different reasons the Pope could be deprived of the dignity. For,
in the case of heresy, they say he is immediately deposed by God,
without any regard to the judgment of men. Thus Turrecremata thinks, as
well as many others.[3]
The Foundation is, that all jurisdiction in the Church is founded on
faith, according to what is read in 1 Corinthians III: “No man can place
any foundation apart from that which has been placed, etc.” Augustine
explains this: “If Christ is the foundation, so also the faith of
Christ;”[4]
and in the first chapter to the Colossians: “Being founded in faith.”
Therefore, if faith is the foundation of the Church, therefore it is
also the foundation of the pontificate and of the very hierarchical
order of the Church. It is confirmed for that reason, that in Matthew
XVI Christ seems to demand a confession of faith from Peter first,
before he would promise this dignity to him. It is confirmed secondly:
the Fathers often show that no one lacking faith can have jurisdiction
in the Church.[5]
Thirdly it is confirmed by the common argument, that a heretic is not a
member of the Church, therefore he cannot be the head. Likewise, a
heretic ought not be greeted, but altogether shunned, as Paul and John
teach;[6]
therefore much less obeyed. Lastly a heretical Pope denies Christ and
the true Church; therefore even his own dignity, therefore because of
this very thing he is deprived of the dignity.
- The Second Assertion, also concerning which de Legibus speaks, bk 4, ch. 7 at the end –
Against this opinion I say secondly: in
no case, even of heresy, is the Pontiff deprived form his dignity and
power immediately by God himself, without undergoing the judgment and
sentence of men. So today it is commonly thought by Cajetan, Domingo de
Soto, Melchior Cano, Corduba and others.[7]
And among other things dealing with the penalties for heretics we will
relate, and show that generally no one at all is deprived from dignity
ecclesiastical and jurisdiction for the fault of heresy by divine law.
Now the reasoning is briefly given a priori, because since this would be the most serious penalty, that it should be incurred ipso facto,
it is fitting that it be expressly by divine law; but no such law is
discovered, which either states the fact generally on heretics, or
particularly on bishops, or most specially on the Pope; likewise
tradition holds nothing certain on the matter; nor can the Pope truly
fall ipso facto from his dignity on account of human law,
because that would be imposed whether by an inferior, such as a council,
or by an equal, namely a preceding Pope; but neither of these has
coactive force that it might avail to punish an equal Pontiff, or a
superior; because etc.
- The Instance is answered. – Another Instance is rejected.
You will say that law can be an
interpreter of divine law. Still this is an invention, because no such
divine law is advanced; besides no law hitherto from Councils or Popes
has been imposed that interprets divine law. It is confirmed, because a
law of this sort would be pernicious to the Church; it cannot be
believed that it was established by Christ; the foregoing is proven,
because if the Pope were a secret heretic, by that law he would fall
from the dignity, and everything done by him would be void. You will say
this reasoning at least does not prove the case concerning a notorious
and public heretic. But it is still opposed, because if he is also a
heretic on the outside, but it was still concealed, yet he can be a true
Pope, he will be able to be so for the same reason, be the crime made
known, as long as a sentence would not be pronounced concerning him;
both because no one falls into a penalty unless it is either ipso facto,
or through a sentence; and because greater inconveniences would thus
follow; we would certainly fall into doubt in regard to how infamous he
ought to be so that he would be reckoned to fall from the dignity; thus
schism would ensue and everything would be thrown into perplexity,
especially if, after the infamy, through force or some other means he
would retain possession of his see, and exercise many more acts of his
office. Secondly it is very forcefully confirmed, because if it should
happen that a Pope would become a heretic on the outside, but it was
still concealed, that afterward he would recover his senses and truly
punish, the perplexity would altogether be avoided, for if through
heresy he fell from the dignity, he ought altogether to yield the
pontificate, which is very serious, and it is almost against the law of
nature for him to give it up; but he could not retain the episcopate
because it would be intrinsically evil. Wherefore, the authors of the
contrary opinion affirm, in that case he could retain the episcopate,
and really be Pope, which is the common opinion of the Canonists with
Glossa in Nunc autem, d. 21. From which point the obvious
argument is taken up against them; for the Papal dignity is not restored
by God through penance, as grace is; it is unheard of, that one who was
not a true Pope, is made Pope without the election and ministry of men.
At length, faith is not necessary in every sort of thing, that a man
should have the capacity for spiritual and ecclesiastical jurisdiction,
and he could exercise true acts examining such jurisdiction; therefore,
etc. The foregoing is clearly manifest, nay more in extreme necessity a
heretical priest can absolve, as is taught in the matter on penance and
censures, because he is not without jurisdiction.
- On the contrary foundation in number 2 – On the First Confirmation in the same place – On the Second – On the Third.
From there, the foundation of the
contrary opinion comes to ruin; just as faith is not a necessary
foundation to the power of order, which is more outstanding in its mode,
so neither for jurisdiction. Furthermore, no author, I believe, will
say to this with a shadow of probability, that the papal dignity is lost
through interior heresy alone, although it would be certain that he
lost faith. Nor are testimonies adduced to the matter, because the
discussion is not on the foundation of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and
dignity, but on the primary foundation of the whole Church and
justification, and of all spiritual goods, which is Christ and his
faith. Moreover, it is not a probable argument taken up form the deed of
Christ with Peter; one could say other things in the same manner, e.g.
charity is the foundation of the pontifical dignity, because Christ also
asked Peter whether he loved him; therefore, as we said above (section
4, num. 4,) Christ only wished to show what was necessary in a Pontiff,
that he could fittingly exercise his office; and in almost the same mode
the Fathers speak, who besides would have it that a heretic is deprived
of all dignity and jurisdiction; sometimes they also treat on deprived
bishops, supposing ecclesiastical law, on which we will speak further
down. To the third confirmation it is responded in one word, that a
heretical Pope is not a member of the Church, in regard to substance and
form whereby they are constituted members of the Church, still he can
be the head in regard to office and influence. This should not be
marveled at, because God does not influence the first and special head
by his virtue, but just as instrumentally and the vicar of the first
head [Christ], because he is capable of giving spiritual influence to
the members, just as through the bronze head; for a proportional reason
sometimes he baptizes through heretics, sometimes he even absolves
through them, as it was said.
- The Third common Assertion –
I say thirdly, if a Pope were a heretic
and incorrigible, when first a declaratory sentence of the crime were to
be advanced against him through the legitimate jurisdiction of the
Church, he ceases to be Pope. This is the common teaching of Doctors; it
is gathered from Clement I in his first epistle, where he says Peter
taught a heretical Pope must be deposed. Moreover the foundation is
this, that it would be a very serious harm to the Church to have such a
pastor, nor could it assist itself in such a grave danger; besides it
goes against the dignity of the Church to remain subject to a heretical
Pope, nor can the Church dislodge him by itself; for of what type the
prince and priest he is, such the people are usualy reckoned: likewise
the reasons of the prior opinion confirm this, especially by the fact
that heresy crawls as a crab, on account of that evil of a
heretic, in so far as he can become one, must be shunned, but how much
more a heretical pastor; still, how can he be shunned, if he does not
cease to be a pastor?
- The First Dubium on the Assertion – The Response of Some – a Truer Response
- The Second Dubium. – It is Resolved in two ways.
Then we run into the second dubium, how
can such a Council be legitimately gathered, since the legitimate
gathering [of a Council] pertains to the Pope. Firstly it may be said it
is not fitting to compel a proper general Council, and it would be
enough to convoke provincial Councils in individual regions or perhaps
national ones by Archbishops, or primates, and for all to come together
in the same opinion. Secondly, since a general Council is fitting to
define matters of faith, or to impose universal laws, then it would be
fitting, that it might be legitimate, to be declared by the Pope; but to
this business which peculiarly concerns the Pontiff himself, which is
in a certain measure contrary to him, it could be legitimately gathered
either by the College of Cardinals, or from a consensus of Bishops; and
if the Pope would attempt to impede a gathering of this sort, he would
not be obeyed, because he would abuse his supreme power against justice
and the common good.
- The Third Dubium. – The Response of Cajetan is Refuted. –
From here the Third uncertainty arises,
by what law could the Pope be judged by that congregation, since he
would be superior to it? Cajetan is marvelously vexed in the matter,
lest he would be compelled to admit the Church or a Council stands above
the Pope in the case of heresy; at length he concludes they indeed
stand above the Pope, but as a private person, not as Pope. This
distinction does not satisfy, for in the same mode that he affirms the
Church validly judges the Pope and punishes him, not as Pope but as a
private person; likewise, because the Pope is superior in so far as he
is Pope, it is nothing other than that person by reason of his dignity
that is exempt from all jurisdiction of another man, and has
jurisdiction over others, as is clear from each and every other dignity;
and it is explained, for the pontifical dignity does not make one
abstractly and metaphysically superior, but really in the individual
superior and subject to none; therefore etc. Moreover, the Council
gathered on this matter in the time of Pope Marcellus, when it declared “The First see is judged by no one,”
it said that concerning the very person of Marcellus, who was certainly
a private person; so also Pope Nicholas relates in his epistle to the
Emperor Michael, where he mentions a similar decree published in the
Roman Council under Sylvester I, and we could bring many more things to
bear.
- A difficult Response of Others – An Easier Response – It is Declared when a silent objection occurs, with which the author agrees, l. 4 contra Jacobum, c. 6, n. 17 – Many Different Ways –
ipso facto he is
immediately deposed by Christ, and deposed he would remain inferior, and
could be punished. Yet, it must be added, although the Church before
its declaration could not coerce a heretical Pope through the manner of
a superior and as one having jurisdiction over him, still by natural
law for its defense could coerce him, if by chance he plotted some harm
against the Church, or tried to impede the gathering of a general
Council. For that reason it is certain, that by divine law the Pontiff
would be deposed by the Church latae sentetiae, firstly I
respond that I brought the testimony of Clement from the mouth of Peter;
secondly the Holy Scriptures, which command heretics to be shunned
sufficiently show this; thirdly, it is so held from the common consensus
of the Church and the Popes, fourthly, natural reason so teaches,
because it is scarcely believable that Christ left the Church destitute
of all remedy in such a danger; furthermore it appears especially suited
to be adduced to the case on which we are disputing.
- The Fourth Dubium – The Response of Cajetan – On What Agreement the Said Response Might be Acceptable –
It can fourthly be doubted on a Pope who
once had been a heretic, yet afterward would have emended. Cajetan
teaches above that he ought not or cannot be deposed, because he would
no longer be a heretic, as is contained in the heading Dixit Apostolus, 24, q. 3, and can be gathered from the deed of Marcellinus, under the heading Nunc autem, distinction 21, where Glossa agrees; as well as the heading Si Papa,
distinction 40, where the Canonists opine that, it also seems to be the
true opinion, especially with the management of Cajetan, that the Pope
must be admonished, e.g. that he is a heretic, once and again, and if he
becomes reasonable again he must not be deposed; because if he was too
contumacious, or certainly relapsed I believe he could and ought to be
deposed, even if he would correct his errors, and swear perseverance,
according to that in 1 Timothy. Thirdly: “A heretic, after the first and
second warning is avoided:” nay more, Jacobatius says, in the eighth
book de Concilio, in the second article, that the mind of the
Canonists is plain, to proceed thus when the Pope falls into heresy and
has not yet been publicly condemned by the Church, and he, taking
notice, immediately comes to his senses; yet if he had erred
contumaciously against the truth which has already been defined, there
must be no more wait, rather he must be deposed on the spot; and because
he already sensed once and was admonished a thousand times, it will not
afterward be urged by any greater authority than that matter was on
which he had defected; and because by his loftiness danger always
threatens, lest he might feign conversion. All of which certainly may be
said to be probable; still they proceed by supposing a true Pope can
fall into heresy. But although many affirm it has the appearance of
truth,[8]
still to me briefly and more pious and probable it seems, that the Pope
can, as a private person, err from ignorance, still not from contumacy.
Certainly, although God could effect that a heretical Pope would not
harm the Church, still the manner of divine providence is sweeter, that
because God promised that the Pope would never err in definitions,
consequently he would provide lest he would ever be a heretic. Add, that
to this point it has never happened in the Church, that it was thought
by the ordination of God and providence that it could happen.[9]
And the same inconvenience would follow, if a secret heretic were
chosen to be Pope, a fact that no one whom I have seen would deny it is
possible; if such a thing would happen, it does not seem to be doubted
that a Pontiff of this sort could persevere with his heresy. Yet,
whatever might be the truth on these cases, altogether it must be
believed that God would never allow that the Church would deviate into
these narrow straights, they [the Canonists] suppose such doubts over
effects; for if any such Pope would begin to administer the Church,
either God would remove him from our midst immediately, or certainly he
would provide by some cause that such an evil would be extinguished in
short order, as we see he has always done in less pressing matters to
this point.
- The Fifth Dubium –
Now it is expedient to deal with two other dubia
which occur. The Fifth was, if an innocent Pope were to be proven a
heretic, could he be deposed; and if he were to be deposed, would it
hold in fact. Firstly, I would deny such a case would be possible, not
only because the Holy Spirit would not permit an affair so pernicious to
the universal Church, but even because the Pope could not be proved to
harm the Church juridically, even if after a legitimate Council were
gathered to this case; moreover it could not be gathered legitimately,
unless it was after he would begin to be notorious and the crime of the
pontiff were sufficiently manifest; but that would be difficult to
believe, if the crime were false, and he never publicly professed, and
it were be able to be evident in the estimation of all. Secondly, by
admitting the case, it [the Church] would not be able to arrive at a
just sentence of deposition, since being innocent, he will easily abjure
all heresy, and very probably at least show signs of his innocence.
Moreover whoever conducted himself in this fashion could not be justly
deposed, as we said. But if, at length, the case were exercised in a
manner that he could be justly condemned, that if he were accused of
false crimes, and proven to relapse, it must be said in that as he is
held to obedience, and on account of a doubt on whether he could be the
true pastor of the Church, be obliged to renounce of his own will, that
he would avoid the supreme condemnation of the Church. But if he were
disinclined to renounce, I believe he would remain truly deposed,
because the sentence is simply just, nor could he be sufficiently
assisted by the Church in any other way.[10]
13 The Sixth Dubium is Answered
The Sixth dubium was, what must be said
in the present question if the Pope were a heretic exteriorly. Briefly
the response is: if he were to exercise an act of idolatry by co-active
force, or subscribe to a heresy, and afterward confess it was against
his will that he did it, and he would deny that he so thought or still
thought, he could not in that event be condemned or deposed, as it is
certain from the acts of Pope Marcellus; still if he were to have
considered it voluntarily, and were to have professed a heretical
doctrine outwardly just as it was from his own opinion, whatever might
be his interior faith, by the same reasoning and manner he can be
proceeded against, in the same way as against every other heretic; not
in as much as the Church judges on interior or secret matters; as much
as because such a Pope harms the Church no less, than if he were a true
heretic. Wherefore, if he would persist in a heresy even to condemnation
and deposition, even if he inwardly never lost the faith, the sentence
would be valid and obtain its effect: nor should care be given on the
aforesaid of one, no matter how much he would declare in earnest that he
had never denied the faith inwardly.
[1] Cap. 1 de Renuntiatione, in 6.
[2] Can. Nunc autem,, d. 12.
[3] John Turrecremata, bk 2, ch. 102, bk 4, 2p, et 18; Augustine of Ancona, de Potestate Papae, art. 5; Paludanus in Pousc. Ejusdem argumenti; Driedo, de libertate Christiana, bk 1, ch. 14; Cast., de Justa haereticorum punitione, 2, ch. 22, et 23; Simanchas, Instit. Cathol., c. 21; Jacobat., de Conciliis, 7, art. 1; Salmeron., Tom. 12, tract. 83.
[4] De fide et operibus, ch. 16.
[5] Cyprian is related in cap. Novatianus, 7, q. 1, cap Didicimus, 24, q. 1; Ambrose, cap. Verbum, de Poenitentia, q. 1; Pope Gelasius, c. Achatius, 1, and Alexander II, cap. Audivimus, 24, q. 1; Augustine, epistle 48 ad Vincent., and liber de Pastoribus; St. Thomas, II IIae, quaest. 39.
[6] Titus III; 2 John.
[7] Cajetan, de Auctoritate Papae, c. 18 et 19; Soto, 4, d. 22, quest. 2, art. 2; Cano de Locis, 4, c. ult. Ad 12; Cordibua, bk 4, q. 11.
[8] St. Robert Bellarmine, de Romano Pontifice,
bk 4, ch. 7. (This was added by the editors of the Paris edition, 1858;
Suarez himself does not directly cite Bellarmine on this matter.
–Translator’s note.)
[9] See Albert Pighius, Ecclesiasticae Hierarchiae, bk 4, c. 8; Simancas, in Institutionibus Catholicis, title 12, number 14.
[10] See de Censur., disputant. 4, sect. 7, n. 8.
SSPX RESISTANCE
No comments:
Post a Comment