1.
Can the Pope be Judged?
Although canon 1556 says
that the First See is judged by no one, Pope
Innocent III clearly made an exception for deviation from the faith. Pope
Innocent wrote, “I can be judged by the Church for that sin only which is
committed against the Faith.” This same exception is also note by St. Robert
Bellarmine in his treatise On the
Councils, where he cites Innocent III. He writes,
Innocent III, in serm. 2 de consecr. Pontificis, says: “In
so great a matter, it is necessary that I have faith, since I have God as a
judge on the rest of my sins, only on account of sin which is committed against
faith, could I be judged by the Church.” Boniface VIII, in extravag., Viam Sanctam, tit. de major. et obed.,
says: “If earthly power would stray, it will be judged by the spiritual power.
If the spiritual would stray, the lesser by the greater. But if the supreme
power would stray, it can be judged by God alone, not by man.” He adds the
testimony of St. Boniface, the Bishop of Fulda, who, even if he was not a Pope,
still was of great authority. Therefore, it is held in dist. 40, can. Si
Papa, where he says: “He that will judge all must be judged by nobody
unless he is found to have deviated from the faith.”
The late
sedevacantist heretic Fr. Anthony Cekada also provides a list of citations of
several theologians who wrote after the First Vatican Council that affirmed the
possibility of a heretical pope in his article “Traditionalists, Infallibility, and the Pope”. Even Charles Cardinal Journet, despite
writing nearly a century after the First Vatican Council, admitted the
possibility of a heretical pope (cf. The Church of the Word Incarnate,
483).
2.
Are Public Material
Heretics Excommunicated?
Although
St. Robert Bellarmine never uses the exact terminology, he definitely employs recognized
the distinction between material and formal heresy.. For example, in his
treatise On the Church Militant, Bellarmine uses the
example of Catholic bishops during the Arian crisis who denied that Christ was homoousios (i.e., consubstantial) with
the Father on account of ignorance of the meaning of the term. Bellarmine
writes,
Then Jerome, speaking in the same time, says, “The whole
world groaned and marveled that it was Arian” (Contra Luciferianos).
…
To that passage of Jerome I respond, there are two figures
in his words, one of understanding, when he says, “The world groaned,” for he
calls the world a great part of the world, but not the whole world, the second
of abuse, when he says, “and marveled to find itself Arian,” for he calls the
Arians improperly those who subscribe to heresy through ignorance. He speaks on
that multitude of Bishops who throughout the world agreed with Ariminus and
being deceived by the Arians decreed that the term homoousios (i.e. consubstantial) must be abolished, even though
they did not know what it meant. Certainly they were not heretics, nor did they
err at least materially, just as if
some Catholic might advance a blasphemous opinion externally with the
tongue thinking it is a pious prayer, such a man would not properly be a
blasphemer. For that reason the same Bishops, as they were admonished and recognized the fallacy,
immediately corrected their error and with tears did penance for the blasphemy,
even though it was only advanced by the tongue, and it seemed the whole world
marveled and groaned to find itself Arian.
The phrase “nor did they err at least materially” is
difficult to interpret. Using Cardinal Billot’s distinction we might say these
bishops had not committed the sin of heresy even materially because they had
not withdrawn from the rule of the ecclesiastical Magisterium. However, the
particular instance of whether these bishops erred materially is tangential to
my main argument that Bellarmine draws a sharp distinction between material and
formal heresy in the section quoted above. To quote two specific passages that
illustrates my point:
(1) “for he calls the Arians improperly those who subscribe
to heresy through ignorance.”
(2) “just as if some Catholic might advance a blasphemous
opinion externally with the tongue thinking it is a pious prayer.”
There are also other passages in Bellarmine’s writings where
he explicitly denies that material
heretics are excluded from the body of the Church. For example, in the case of Pope Marcellinus, Bellarmine writes,
The tenth is Pope
Marcellinus, who sacrificed to idols, as is certain from the Pontifical of
Damasus, the Council of Sinvessanus, and from the epistle of Nicholas I to the
Emperor Michael. But Marcellinus neither taught something against faith, nor
was he a heretic, or unfaithful, except by an external act on account of the
fear of death. Now, whether he fell from the pontificate due to that external
act or not, little is related; later he abdicated the pontificate and shortly
thereafter was crowned with martyrdom. Still, I believe that he would not have fallen from the pontificate ipso
facto, because it was certain to all that he sacrificed to idols only out of
fear.
The context of this passage makes it abundantly clear that
Bellarmine is referring to public sins against the faith, and not merely occult
crimes. In the very next paragraph, Bellarmine cites the example of Pope Marcellinus
who was clearly a public delinquent. He writes,
Therefore,
private men, when they litigate with their prince, usually appeal from the
prince badly represented, to represent the same better, and it is confirmed
from the ancient histories, for when
Marcellinus sinned, and on account of it he gathered a Council, all the
Bishops said he could not be condemned by anyone, rather he ought to be the
judge, and the defendant, as Nicholas I relates in his epistle to the Emperor
Michael. Likewise, Sixtus III, when he was accused of adultery, the Emperor
gathered a Council with the Pope’s consent, but in that Council no man dared to
strike up the case of the Pope unless first he would have said that he willed
the case to be discussed, even if he would be judged by his own judgment, but
not judged. It is clear both from the acts of that Council and from the epistle
of the same Sixtus to the Bishops of the east.
Next, in the fourth Roman
Council under Symmachus, we read that all the Bishops said the Council could
not be summoned by right unless it were by the Pope, even if he were the one
that were accused. For this purpose, did not Arius litigate with Alexander on
the faith? And still in the Council of Nicaea Alexander sat, because he was a
Bishop as a judge. Likewise, in the third Council Cyril presided in episcopal
judgment, still it was said on the side of the Nestorians to have the side of
those litigating. So also in the fourth Council, legates of Pope Leo presided,
although the whole case turned the dispute between Leo and Dioscorus. It
happens also that the Pope in a Council is not only the judge, but has many
colleagues, that is, all the Bishops
who, if they could convict him of heresy, they could also judge and depose him
even against his will. Therefore, the heretics have nothing: why would
they complain if the Roman Pontiff presides at a Council before he were
condemned?
Finally, in the
second book of the first volume of his treatise On the Roman Pontiff, Bellarmine writes,
The
first is of Albert Pighius, who contends that the Pope cannot be a heretic, and
hence would not be deposed in any case: such an opinion is probable, and can
easily be defended, as we will show in its proper place. Still, because it is
not certain, and the common opinion is to the contrary, it will be worthwhile
to see what the response should be if the Pope could be a heretic.
Contrary to popular
belief, Pighius’ view was not that a pope could not teach heresy
publicly, but that he would never become a pertinacious heretic. This
view was also held by St. Robert Bellarmine. In the fourth book of the second
volume, Bellarmine writes,
It is probable and may
piously be believed that not only as ‘Pope’ can the Supreme Pontiff not err,
but he cannot be a heretic even as a particular person by pertinaciously
believing something false against the faith.
This is despite stating
that all Catholics and heretics agree that a pope can err as a private teacher.
He writes in the same book,
With these things being
noted, all Catholics and the heretics
agree on two things. Firstly, that the Pontiff, even as Pontiff, can
err in particular controversies of fact [e.g., whether so and so should be
promoted to the episcopate, or whether it was done lawfully, or whether he must
be deposed], even together with a general Council, because these depend
especially on the testimonies of men. Secondly, the Pope can err as a private teacher from ignorance, even
in universal questions of law concerning
both faith and morals, just
as what happens to other teachers.
It should be noted that
Bellarmine says that all Catholics agree that a pope can fall into heresy as a
private teacher, despite adhering to Pighius’s view that a Pope can never be
deposed for heresy. The only way to reconcile these two passages is by drawing
a distinction between formal and material heresy. Two clarifications need to be
made. First, when Bellarmine says that a pope can “err” through ignorance he’s
referring to heresy properly speaking (and not lesser degrees of theological
error). This is evident from the following paragraphs:
Next, all Catholics agree
on two other things, but only amongst themselves and not with the heretics.
Firstly, the Pope with a general council cannot err when he issues decrees of
faith or general precepts of morals. Secondly, the Pope, by himself or with a
particular council, while stating something in a doubtful matter, whether he
could err or not, must be obediently heard by all the faithful.
With such things being
laid out, only four different opinions remain.
1) Should the Pope define
something, even as Pope, and even with a general Council, it can be heretical in itself, and he can
teach others heresy and that this in fact has happened thus. This is the
opinion of all the heretics of this time, and especially of Luther, who in his
book on councils recorded the errors even of general councils that the Pope
approved. It is also the opinion of Calvin, who asserted that at some time the
Pope with the whole college of Cardinals manifestly taught heresy on that
question of whether the soul of man is extinguished with the body, which is a
manifest lie, as we will show a little later. Next, he teaches in the same book
that the Pope can err even with a general council.
2) The second opinion is
that the Pope even as Pope can be a heretic
and teach heresy, if he defines something without a general Council,
something that this opinion holds did in fact happen. Nilos Cabásilas has
followed this opinion in his book against the primacy of the Pope; a few others
follow the same opinion, especially amongst the Parisian theologians such as
John Gerson, Almain and still, Alonso de Castro as well as Pope Adrian VI in
his question on Confirmation; all of these constitute infallibility of judgment
on matters of faith not with the Pope, but with the Church or a General
Council.
3) The Third opinion is
on another extreme, that the Pope cannot
in any way be a heretic nor publicly teach heresy, even if he alone
should define some matter, as Albert Pighius says.
4) The fourth opinion is
that in a certain measure, whether the Pope can be a heretic or not, he cannot define a heretical proposition that must be believed by the whole
Church in any way. This is a very common opinion of nearly all Catholics.
These authors seem in
some way to disagree with themselves because some of them say the Pontiff
cannot err if he should proceed maturely and listen to the counsel of other
pastors, while others say the Pope can err in no way whatsoever, even by
himself; but really they do not disagree among themselves. For the latter would
not deny whether the Pope should be held to proceed maturely and consult
learned men; rather, they only wished to say that infallibility itself is not
in a body of counselors or in a council of bishops, but in the Pope alone. On
the other hand, the former would not have it that they place infallibility in
the counselors, but only in the Pontiff; rather they wished to explain that the
Pope ought to do what is in himself by consulting learned men and experts in
the matter which is treated. If anyone would ask, however, whether the Pope
could err if he should rashly define something, then without a doubt the
aforesaid authors would all respond that it cannot happen that the Pope would
rashly define something, for God has promised the end, and without a doubt he
promised also the means which are necessary to obtain that end. It would be of
little benefit to know that the Pope was not going to err when he rashly
defined something unless we also knew that the providence of God would not
permit him to define something rashly.
From these four opinions,
the first is heretical; the second is not properly heretical, for we see that
some who follow this opinion are tolerated by the Church, even though it seems
altogether erroneous and proximate to heresy. The third is probable, though it
is still not certain. The fourth is very certain and must be asserted, and we
will state a few propositions so that it can be understood and confirmed more
easily.
Second, the phrase “private teacher”
extends to the pope’s official teaching capacity, and not merely his private
theological opinions. This is evident from Bellarmine’s response to the cases
of Nicholas and Honorius. Bellarmine writes,
The twenty-sixth is
Nicholas I, whom several condemn, because he taught that baptism conferred in
the name of Christ, without expression of the three persons, was valid. That is
contrary not only to the evangelical institution, but even to the decrees of
other Popes, namely, of Pelagius and Zachary, who condemned the baptism of
those who are only baptized in the name of Christ and not expressly in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and is clear in the same
place. Nor can the response be given that in the time of Nicholas, it was still
not defined whether baptism was invalid if conferred in the name of Christ, for
that was defined in the English Council and confirmed by Pope Zachary who
preceded Nicholas.
I respond: Nicholas was
not defining a question on faith when he spoke; rather, he only expressed his
opinion in passing as a private
teacher. For what he intended to teach in that canon was not on the
form of baptism, but only on the minister concerning which he had been asked.
Therefore, after he responded and defined that baptism was valid, even if given
by a Jew or a pagan, which the question was especially about, he added in
passing that baptism is valid whether it is given in the name of the three
persons or in the name of Christ alone. In this he followed the opinion of
Ambrose as he says himself. Still, in my judgment, this opinion is false, but
not heretical. There is no certain definition of the Church that is discovered
on this affair, and various opinions are discovered among the Fathers.
In this context, Pope Nicholas was
responding to several questions sent by unidentified Bulgarians in his official
capacity (although he wasn’t defining the matter definitively). Similarly, in
his response to the case of Honorius, Bellarmine writes,
You might say: But
certainly these Councils believed that the Pope could err. I respond: Those
Fathers only believed that the Pope could err as a private man, which is a probable opinion, although the
contrary seems more probable to us. That is all that Honorius is accused of,
that he fostered heresy in private
letters.
However, if we read the two letters of
Honorius, he clearly wasn’t acting as a private individual, since Sergius
appealed to him to resolve a theological dispute between the patriarchates of
Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. Later both Sergius and Paul of
Constantinople appealed to his authority to defend their doctrine. Of course, Honorius
nowhere condemns dyothelitism in the course of his two letters, nor does he
definitively define monothelitism. In any event, Honorius couldn’t have been a
heretic properly speaking since the Church hadn’t formally taught dyothelitism
until that point. There is also reason to doubt whether Honorius adhered to
monothelitism.
Bellarmine clearly distinguishes
between material and formal heresy in his treatise On the Church Militant. Using the Arian crisis as an example, he
argues that mere external violation of the law did not entail an immediate loss
of office. Bellarmine writes,
Then Jerome, speaking in the same time, says, “The whole
world groaned and marveled that it was Arian” (Contra Luciferianos).
…
To that passage of Jerome I respond, there are two figures
in his words, one of understanding, when he says, “The world groaned,” for he
calls the world a great part of the world, but not the whole world, the second
of abuse, when he says, “and marveled to find itself Arian,” for he calls the
Arians improperly those who subscribe to heresy through ignorance. He speaks on
that multitude of Bishops who throughout the world agreed with Ariminus and
being deceived by the Arians decreed that the term homoousios (i.e.
consubstantial) must be abolished, even though they did not know what it meant.
Certainly they were not heretics, nor did they err at least materially, just as if some Catholic might advance a
blasphemous opinion externally with the tongue thinking it is a pious
prayer, such a man would not properly be a blasphemer. For that reason the same
Bishops, as they were admonished and
recognized the fallacy, immediately corrected their error and with
tears did penance for the blasphemy, even though it was only advanced by the
tongue, and it seemed the whole world marveled and groaned to find itself
Arian.
a)
Pope Liberius
Sedevacantists argue the
mere appearance of a pope acting against the faith entails an immediate loss of
office. They typical cite the case of Liberius from Bellarmine’s De Romano Pontifice in support of this
view,
Although Liberius was not a heretic, still it was considered
that, on account of the peace made with the Arians, that he was a heretic, and
from that presumption his pontificate could rightly be abrogated. For men
cannot be held to thoroughly search hearts; yet when they see one who is a heretic
by his external works, then they judge simply and condemn him as a heretic.
Sedevacantists
conveniently leave out the context of this passage,
Next, it is not at all credible that Jerome and Ruffinus
could have such a discrepancy in their history, that one would deny something
and the other affirms it. Even if Felix were an Arian (which still to this
point is not proven) he did no harm to the Apostolic see. At that time Felix was an anti-pope, not a true and legitimate Pope, as two cannot be Pope together.
The true Pope was still alive, namely
Liberius. Wherefore (as we related from Theodoret above) no Catholic in
Rome wanted to communicate with Felix at that time.
Next, two years
after the fall of Liberius, concerning which we spoke above, then the Roman clergy abrogated Liberius
from the pontifical dignity and conferred it upon Felix, whom they knew to be
Catholic. From that time Felix began
to be a true Pope. Although Liberius was not a heretic, still it was
considered that, on account of the peace made with the Arians, that he was a
heretic, and from that presumption his pontificate could rightly be abrogated.
For men cannot be held to thoroughly search hearts; yet when they see one who
is a heretic by his external works, then they judge simply and condemn him as a
heretic. Jerome shows this in his Chronicle, when he says that many from the Roman clergy perjured themselves
and went to Felix. They are said to have perjured themselves, because they did
not keep the oath that they had taken to not receive another Pontiff.
Next, Felix, now a true Pope, noticing the danger to the
Church and the faith, without a doubt inspired by God who did not desert his
Church, not only receded from communication with the Arians, but even compelled
a council and declared the Emperor Constantius, as well as the bishops Ursacius
and Valens with whom Liberius had made peace, to be truly heretics. And for
that reason, when Liberius returned to the city, Felix was ejected with his own
by the Arians, and died not long after, whether beheaded, or consumed in
labors.
Bellarmine
confuses Felix II (d. 365) with Pope Felix II (d. 492), who died as a martyr
over a century later. Bellarmine writes,
To this, unless we should affirm that Liberius at some time
defected from the constancy that must be guarded in the faith, we are compelled
to exclude Felix II, who managed the pontificate while Liberius was alive, from
the number of the Pontiffs, although still, this very Felix was venerated by the Catholic Church as a Pope and
martyr.
According to the translator’s note,
To be clear, not only
historians but even the Church has not followed Bellarmine's judgment on Felix
II. On the one hand Bellarmine brings credible arguments; still it muddies the
waters even more. Modern historians know that the 2nd formulary of Sirmium,
which Liberius signed, was not in itself heretical but could be interpreted as
such. But when Bellarmine argues that, essentially, a Pope can be removed from
the Pontificate by the Roman Clergy because it appeared that he was heretical, he creates a problem in that by his own
admission Liberius was not a heretic. Therefore, how does Liberius cease to be Pope, unless it were by the
will of the Church? This too is contrary to what he says in Book II,
ch. 30 as well as in this book. Thus we have one possibility: Bellarmine
correctly sees in these writings that Felix II was not a heretic, and was
received temporarily by the Roman clergy, whether he was intended to be a
puppet of the Arians or not, but then defended the faith by an act of God's
providence though he was not a true Pope. Thus, Liberius did not so much become
true Pope again (as if he could cease to be Pope while in exile) as resume his
control of the Roman Church. This would seem to satisfy the issue, although we
would leave it for experts in this area to clarify further.
b)
Nestorius
Another
passage Sedevacantists cite from Bellarmine in support of their heresy is,
Pope
Celestine I, in an epistle to John of Antioch, which is contained in Volume One
of the Council of Ephesus, ch. 19, says: “If anyone who was either
excommunicated or exiled by Bishop Nestorius, or any that followed him, from
such a time as he began to preach such things, whether they be from the dignity
of a bishop or clergy, it is manifest that he has endured and endures in our
communion, nor do we judge him outside, because he could not remove anyone by a
sentence, who himself had already shown that he must be removed.” And in a
letter to the clergy of Constantinople: “The Authority of our See has
sanctioned, that the bishop, cleric or Christian by simple profession who had
been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy,
shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preaching, cannot
depose or remove anyone whatsoever.
Sedevacantists leave out
some important historical details. Nestorius did not automatically lose his
office after beginning to preach heresy. Otherwise, it would make no sense for
St. Cyril to write to the clergy and laity in Constantinople that unless Nestorius
repented of his heresy he would be excommunicated. Bellarmine writes in his
treatise On the Councils,
The third Council was the
first of Ephesus, in which it is certain that the Emperor did not preside,
rather the Roman Pontiff through legates.
…
But Calvin responds that
Celestine, by some artifice, sought at least the name of the presidency when he
could not hold it in fact and therefore sent his own there, to Cyril, who
otherwise was going to hold the presidency, to delegate in their place, that he
would at least appear to preside through him. But this is a figment of Calvin,
which he advances without any reason and it is easily refuted.
First, from Prosper, who
says that Nestorius especially resisted the industry of Cyril and the authority
of Celestine.
Secondly, from the
epistle of Celestine in which we see that authority was entrusted to Cyril in
place of the Roman Pontiff; much earlier than the other legates were sent.
Thirdly, from Nicepherous
(loc. cit.) who says that the great eastern Bishops confirmed this privilege
given to Cyril from Celestine, that later Cyril received a mitre and the name
of Pope, and was called judge of the whole world, and these ornaments he also
transmitted to his successors.
Fourthly, from the epistle of Cyril to the people
of Constantinople, in which he says that if Nestorius did not come back to his
senses within the limit set by Pope St. Celestine, he would be deprived of
communion with the Church.
Fifthly, from the Council
itself, which (as Evagrius relates in liber 1, cap. 4) and from the very
sentence which is held in volume 2, cap. 10 of this Council, when it meant to
pronounce the condemnation against Nestorius, it prefaced the decree with other
canons of the Church, and especially the letters of Pope Celestine necessarily
compelled to so severe a sentence.
Lastly, an epistle is extant from the Council
to Celestine, in which they reserve to the judgment of Celestine himself the
case of Bishop John of Antioch, as he was of the same opinion. All such are certain
arguments that Celestine really was the president and chief in that Council.
Regarding Bellarmine’s
fourth point, The New Schaff-Herzog
Encyclopedia provides some historical background,
In August 430, Celestine held a synod at Rome and excommunicated
Nestorius unless he should publicly recant within ten days after learning of
the decree. He wrote to the same effect to Nestorius, the clergy of
Constantinople, John of Antioch, Juvenal of Jerusalem, the Macedonian bishops,
and Cyril. The latter [i.e., Cyril] was formally authorized to pronounce
anathema on Nestorius unless he should recant within the appointed time.
In November of the same year, St. Cyril convened to a synod at Alexandria
and wrote the “third letter” to Nestorius, which contained the twelve articles
against Nestorian doctrines. However, it wasn’t until the Council of Ephesus in
431 that the bishops officially condemned Nestorius,
The holy synod
said: As, in addition to all else, the excellent Nestorius has declined to obey
our summons and has not received the holy and God-fearing bishops we sent to
him, we have of necessity started upon an investigation of his impieties. We
have found him out thinking and speaking in an impious fashion, from his
letters, from his writings that have been read out, and from the things that he
has recently said in this metropolis which have been witnessed to by others;
and as a result we have been compelled of necessity both by the canons and by
the letter of our most holy father and fellow servant Celestine, bishop of the
church of the Romans, to issue this sad condemnation against him, though we do
so with many tears.
3. Private vs. Public Judgment
In his treatise On the Councils, Bellarmine makes a
distinction between private and public judgment. He argues that private
judgments have no judicial effect and are binding on no one else.
There is a twofold
judgment, public and private. It is public which is advanced by a public judge
with authority, so that the rest would be held to acquiesce to that judge. It is private, that opinion
which everyone chooses as true, but
obliges nobody, in the same way as in the disputations of Theologians
and Philosophers, the students are the judges, after hearing each side they
choose what they wish, but nobody can
compel anyone to think likewise.
A public judgment in a cause of faith
is never attributed to the people, but a private judgment was sometimes
attributed also to pious and holy men, but then only when something else could
not be done, for the people are held to follow the judgment of their pastors:
nevertheless, when heretics live with Catholics unpunished and seduce many, it
is expedient whenever public disputations with them are begun in the presence
of the people, to relinquish judgment to the people that it would follow what
seems to rest upon better reasons. This is what Elijah did (3 Kings 18) who
when he could not otherwise recall the people from the cult of Baal, he
instituted a contest with the prophets of Baal, with the people present, and
said: “Who will hear through fire, he that is God, if the Lord is God, follow
him, if Baal is God, follow him.”
With these things being
noted, I say to all those citations, that in those disputations private judgment was given to the
people, not a public one, and this because it could not be done
otherwise. That is what can be understood from the Epistle of Ambrose, for he
says: “Let anyone who is present, openly come to the Church, let them hear with
the people, not that anyone should reside as a judge, but that each one of his
own affect should have an examination, and choose whom he will follow.” There
you see a public judgment is denied to the people, rather a private one is
given. Moreover, the reason that a private one was given, is because then at
Milan the emperor favored the Arians, and it could not otherwise be obtained.
This can be said in general to all the cited passages. But in particular, to
that about the Council of Nicaea, it must be known that laymen were not called
nor were present in the acts of the Council, but came of themselves, that they
would dispute with Bishops outside the Council, whom they heard came from the
whole world. See Ruffinus (lib. 10, cap. 3).
4. Who can Judge a Heretical Pope?
In his
treatise On the Roman Pontiff,
Bellarmine explicitly rejects that the laity can conclude, apart from ecclesial
judgment, that a heretical pope has fallen from his office, “On the other hand, who
will judge whether the Pope has taught rightly or not? For it is not for the
sheep to judge whether the shepherd wanders off, not even and especially in
those matters which are truly doubtful.” In his
treatise On the Councils, Bellarmine
identifies the sheep with the laity, “What if some are pastors, that is,
Bishops, and some are sheep, that is laymen, and only pastors ought to come together in Councils to define
what are good pastures and what are harmful ones; certainly it follows that
Councils are not made up of the laity, but the priests.” Here,
Bellarmine implies that only bishops have a right to participate in a general
council. He makes this point explicit earlier in the same treatise, “But the
teaching of Catholics is that only greater prelates, that is Bishops,
ordinarily have a right to a decisive vote in general and provincial Councils,
while from privilege and also custom, even Cardinals, Abbots and the Generals
of Orders, even if they are not Bishops.”
Whenever Bellarmine discusses the deposition of a pope, he always sets in the
context of a general council. For example, in his treatise On the Councils, Bellarmine writes,
Moreover,
the particular reasons, on account of which Councils are celebrated, are
usually numbered as six.
…
The
fourth reason is suspicion of heresy in the Roman Pontiff, if perhaps it might
happen, or if he were an incorrigible tyrant; for then a general Council ought to be gathered either to depose the
Pope if he should be found to be a
heretic, or certainly to admonish him, if he seemed incorrigible in
morals. As it is related in the 8th Council, act. ult. can. 21, general
Councils ought to impose judgment on controversies arising in regard to the
Roman Pontiff—albeit not rashly.
He writes in the same treatise,
The Lutherans, who call
themselves Protestants, propose eight conditions for celebrating a
Council…Sixthly, that the Roman Pontiff would absolve all prelates from the
oath of fidelicty, in which they have been bound.
…
The sixth condition is
unjust and impertinent. Unjust, because inferiors
ought not be free from the obedience to superiors, ***unless first he were legitimately
deposed or declared not to be a superior***, just as it would be unjust
that as often as imperial assemblies were conducted, the Emperor ought to make
the oath of fidelicty that all the princes must offer in subjection to him
free. Moreover, it is no new or recent thing that Bishops should furnish an
oath of obedience to the Pope, as is clear from St. Gregory (lib. 1 epist. 31)
and from cap. Significasti, extra de elect. Likewise, from the eleventh Council
of Toledo (ca. 10). Furthermore, it is impertinent because that oath does not
take away the freedom of the Bishops, which is necessary in Councils, for they
swear they will be obedient to the supreme Pontiff, which is understood as long
as he is Pope, and provided he commands these things which, according to God
and the sacred canons he can command; but
they do not swear that they are not going to say what they think in the Council,
or that they are not going to depose him if they were to clearly prove that he
is a heretic.
5. Bellarmine Required a Declaratory
Sentence
Bellarmine explicitly states that a Pope retains his office
until a judicial sentence has been pronounced against a heretical pope. He writes,
The Lutherans, who call
themselves Protestants, propose eight conditions for celebrating a Council…
Thirdly, that the Roman Pontiff should not summon the Council, nor preside in
it, but that it should be on the other side of those litigating, just as when
someone is accused and no man is at the same time the judge and the accusing
party.
…
The third condition is
unjust, because the Roman Pontiff cannot be deprived of his right to summon
Councils and preside over them, in whose possession this right has already been
for 1500 years, unless he were first
convicted by the legitimate judgment of a Council and is not the Supreme
Pontiff. Moreover, what they say, that the same man ought not be a
judge and a party, I say has place in private men, but not in a supreme prince.
***For the supreme prince, as long as
he is not declared or judged to have legitimately been deprived of his rule, is
always the supreme judge,*** even if he litigates with himself as a
party…
…
Next, in the fourth Roman
Council under Symmachus, we read that all the Bishops said the Council could
not be summoned by right unless it were by the Pope, even if he were the one
that were accused. For this purpose, did not Arius litigate with Alexander on
the faith? And still in the Council of Nicaea Alexander sat, because he was a
Bishop as a judge. Likewise, in the third Council Cyril presided in episcopal judgment,
still it was said on the side of the Nestorians to have the side of those
litigating. So also in the fourth Council, legates of Pope Leo presided,
although the whole case turned the dispute between Leo and Dioscorus. It
happens also that the Pope in a Council is not only the judge, but has many
colleagues, that is, all the Bishops
who, if they could convict him of heresy, they could also judge and depose him
even against his will. Therefore, the heretics have nothing: why would
they complain if the Roman Pontiff presides at a Council before he were
condemned?
6.
Is Vatican II Invalid?
According to Bellarmine, the laity have
no authority to judge an ecumenical council based on their private judgments.
He writes,
The Lutherans, who call
themselves Protestants, propose eight conditions for celebrating a Council.
Since Gaspar Villalpando has made a sufficient dissertation on these, we will
briefly refute them here. Firstly, therefore, they require that before the
Council occurs all the acts of the Council of Trent be invalidated.
…
The first condition is
unjust because nothing ought to be held invalid unless it is condemned by a
legitimate judgment. Moreover, the
Council of Trent is accused by heretics but has not been condemned by any
legitimate judge. Therefore, just as the second Council of Ephesus was
condemned at the Council of Chalcedon, and the Council of Constantinople
against images was condemned at the seventh Council, so also the Council of
Trent, if it must be condemned, ought
to be examined and judged in another Council, but not invalidated before the
judgment of another Council.
7.
Bellarmine Required
Fraternal Corrections
Following the instruction of St. Paul
(Titus 3:10), Bellarmine required that a heretical pope be fraternally admonished
twice (not as an act of authority, but charity) to establish pertinacity. In
his refutation of Cajetan’s opinion, Bellarmine states that a solemn and public
warning issued by the College of Bishops or a Synod in Rome was required to
establish pertinacity. He writes,
The fourth opinion is of Cajetan.
There, he teaches, that a manifestly heretical Pope is not ipso facto deposed;
but can and ought to be deposed by the Church. Now in my judgment, such an
opinion cannot be defended. For in the first place, that a manifest heretic
would be ipso facto deposed, is proven from authority and reason. The Authority is of St. Paul, who
commands Titus, that after two censures, that is, after he appears manifestly
pertinacious, an heretic is to be shunned: and he understands this before excommunication and sentence of a judge.
It should be noted that the sentence
of a judge that Bellarmine alludes to could refer to the condemnatory sentence,
and not the declaratory sentence, which Bellarmine strictly required in the
case of a heretical Pope. In a misinformed article written by sedevacantist
Steven Speray, the author
suggests that Bellarmine didn’t require warnings to establish pertinacity. He
takes a quote from John of St. Thomas to prove his point,
The arguments of
Bellarmine and Suarez against the foregoing opinion [of Cajetan] are easily
refuted. For Bellarmine objects that the Apostle says that a heretic is
to be avoided after two corrections, that
is, after he manifestly appears to be pertinacious; and that happens
before any excommunication or judicial sentence, as Jerome comments, for
heretics depart from the body of Christ of their own accord [per se].
In the above quoted section, John of
St. Thomas is providing a summary of Bellarmine’s opinion; he is not critiquing
it. This is evident when we compare the two texts side by side.
|
John of St. Thomas
|
Robert Bellarmine
|
|
For Bellarmine
objects that the Apostle says that a heretic is to be avoided after two
corrections, that is, after
he manifestly appears to be pertinacious; and that happens before any
excommunication or judicial sentence,
as
Jerome comments, for heretics depart from the body of Christ of their own
accord [per se]. And his reasoning is this: a non-Christian
cannot be Pope (for he cannot be the head who is not a member); but the
heretic is not a Christian, as the Fathers commonly teach; therefore, the
manifest heretic cannot be Pope.
Nor can one respond that he still has
the [baptismal] character; for, if he remained Pope because of this character,
it will never be possible to depose him, as this character is
indelible. Wherefore, the
Fathers—such as Cyprian, Jerome, and Ambrose—teach with one accord that heretics lack all
jurisdiction and power by reason of their heresy, and that this is so
independently of any excommunication.
|
Now in my judgment, such an opinion cannot be defended.
For in the first place, that a manifest heretic would be ipso facto deposed,
is proven from authority and reason. The
Authority is of St. Paul, who commands Titus, that after two censures, that
is, after he appears manifestly pertinacious, an heretic is to be shunned:
and he understands this before excommunication and sentence of a judge.
Jerome comments on the
same place, saying that other sinners, through a judgment of excommunication
are excluded from the Church; heretics, however,
leave by themselves and are cut from the body of Christ, but a Pope who
remains the Pope cannot be shunned. How will we shun our Head? How will we
recede from a member to whom we are joined?
Now in
regard to reason this is indeed very certain. A non-Christian cannot in any
way be Pope, as Cajetan affirms in the same book [324], and the reason is
because he cannot be the head of that which he is not a member, and he is not
a member of the Church who is not a Christian. But a manifest heretic is not
a Christian, as St. Cyprian and
many other Fathers clearly teach.
…
But on the contrary, since in the first place, were a
heretic to remain joined with the Church in act by reason of the character, he could never be cut off and
separated from her, because the
character is indelible, yet everyone affirms that some can be cut off
from the Church de facto: therefore, the
character does not make a heretical man exist in the Church in act;
rather, it is only a sign that he was in the Church, and that he ought to be
in the Church.
Ambrose and
Augustine teach the same, as does St. Jerome who says: “Bishops who were
heretics cannot continue to be so; rather let them be constituted such who
were received that were not heretics.”
|
This interpretation is reaffirmed by Fr. Pietro Ballerini
(1698-1769), who was an adherent of Bellarmine’s fifth opinion. In his treatise
De Potestate Ecclesiastica, Fr.
Ballerini writes,
A peril
for the faith so imminent and among all the most grave, as this of a Pontiff
who, even only privately, defended heresy, would not be able to be supported
for long. Why, then, expect the remedy to come from a General Council, whose
convocation is not easy? Is it not true that, confronted with such a danger for
the faith, any subjects can by fraternal correction warn their superior, resist
him to his face, refute him and, if necessary, summon him and press him to
repent? The Cardinals, who are his
counselors, can do this; or the Roman Clergy, or the Roman Synod, if, being
met, they judge this opportune.
For any
person, even a private person, the words of Saint Paul to Titus hold: “Avoid
the heretic, after a first and second correction, knowing that such a man is
perverted and sins, since he is condemned by his own judgement” (Tit. 3, 10-11). For the person who, admonished once or
twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a
manifest or public dogma – not being able, on account of this public
pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which
requires pertinacity – this person declares himself openly a heretic.
He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and
the Church, in such form that now no
declaration or sentence of any one whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the
body of the Church. In this matter the argument given by Saint Jerome
in connection with the cited words of Saint Paul is very clear: “Therefore it
is said that the heretic has condemned himself; for the fornicator, the
adulterer, the murderer and the other sinners are expelled from the Church by
the priests; but the heretics pronounce sentence against themselves, excluding themselves from the Church spontaneously;
this exclusion which is their condemnation by their own conscience”.
Therefore the Pontiff who after such a
solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by
a Synod, maintained himself hardened in heresy and openly turned himself away
from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precepts of
Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and
contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally
on guard in relation to him. Thus,
the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made known to all
the Church, making clear that by his own will he had turned away and separated
himself from the body of the Church, and that in a certain way he had abdicated
the Pontificate, which no one holds or can hold if he does not belong to the
Church. One sees then that in the case of a heresy, to which the
Pontiff adhered privately, there would be an immediate and efficacious remedy, without the convocation of the General
Council: for in this hypothesis whatever would be done against him before the declaration of his contumacy
and heresy, in order to call him to reason, would constitute an obligation of charity, not of jurisdiction;
and if, after his turning away from the Church had been made manifest, there was a sentence passed on him by the Council, such a sentence would be pronounced
against one who was no longer Pope nor superior to the Council.
8.
Formal Apostolic
Succession
In his treatise On the
Church Militant, St. Robert Bellarmine writes,
b) The Church cannot
exist without Bishops and priests, as Jerome teaches. But who knows for certain
who might be true Bishops and priests since that depends upon the intention of
the one ordaining and upon an invisible character.
…
resp. b) Two things can
be considered on Bishops: Firstly, that they hold the place of Christ so for
that reason we owe obedience to them, and because they cannot deceive us in
those things necessary for salvation. Secondly, that they might have the power
of Order and Jurisdiction. If it is considered in the first mode, we are
certain with an infallible certitude that these, whom we see, are our true
Bishops and Pastors. For this, neither faith, nor the character of order, nor
even legitimate election is required, but only that they be held for such by
the Church. Since they are Bishops on account of the Church, they are not
against it; God assists those who are held for such lest they would err in
teaching the Church. Now, if this is considered in the second manner, we do not
have any but a moral certitude that
these will truly be Bishops, although it is certain, with infallible certitude,
that at least some are true, otherwise God will have deserted the Church.
For this purpose, to hold the Church is certain and clearly visible in so far
as the heads and members, the first consideration suffices.
In his treatise On the Marks of the Church, St. Robert Bellamrine writes,
The fifth Mark is the Succession of Bishops in the Roman
Church deduced from the apostles even to us; hence it is called Apostolic.
Besides, all the Fathers used this succession as a most clear argument to show
the true Church. Irenaeus enumerates the Roman bishops from Peter, even to
Eleutherius, who sat in his times. And he says that, through this succession
all heretics are confounded.93 Tertullian says: “Let the heretics start from
the origins of their Churches, let them unfold the order of their bishops, so
through the succession running down from the beginning, their first bishop had
someone from the apostles, or apostolic men as his author and predecessor. In
this manner, the Church of the Romans relates that Clement was ordained by
Peter.”94
The heretics sometimes
fabricate such a thing. Eusebius in his history and in the Chronicle, as well
as Jerome and Prosper who continued the Chronicle of Eusebius, diligently
recorded the succession of Roman bishops, so that the continuation of the
Church would be manifest. Epiphanius enumerates in order the Roman bishops, and
adds: “Nobody should marvel that we have reviewed individuals so exactly.
Through this, indeed, charity is shown.”95
Optatus enumerates all
the Roman bishops from Peter even to Syricius, who sat in the seat of Peter at
that time in order that he might show that the Donatists did not have a Church
who could not embark on a like succession back to the apostles: “You, show the
origin of your seat, who would claim the holy Church for yourselves.”96
Next, St. Augustine
enumerates for the same purpose, the Roman pontiffs from Peter even to
Anastasius, who sat at that time. And against the position of Donatus he says: “Count
the priests, or, from the seat of Peter itself, and in that order, of the Fathers
who succeeded him. Look to it, he is the rock, which the proud gates of hell
shall not conquer.”97 And again: “Keep me in the Church which is from that seat
of Peter the Apostle, whom the Lord entrusted with the task of feeding his
sheep, in a succession of priests event to the present episcopacy.”98
…
In the event you should
wish to better understand this argument, some things must be noted. First, in no way can the Church exist without
shepherds and bishops, as St. Cyprian rightly teaches, the Church is the
people united to the bishop, and the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in
the bishop.99 For that reason St. Jerome says: “If it does not have priests it
is not a Church.” This is certainly proved from St. Paul: “And he gave some as
apostles, some, however, as prophets, others shepherds and teachers to the
consummation of the saints, to build up the body of Christ, until we might all
meet, etc.” Where he teaches apostles,
he means the pastors who were going to exist in the church even to the day of
judgment. Then indeed, we will meet the Lord in the unity of faith, in the
perfect man, in the measure of the age of plenitude of Christ. The same apostle
teaches that bishops are the shepherds of the flock, in Acts XX: “Attend to
your own and the whole flock, in which the Holy Spirit has placed you as
bishops to rule the Church of God.” Furthermore, even Luther does not deny it,
in fact he preferably places among the marks of the Church to have true
shepherds.102 From which it follows, it is not a true Church that has either no
shepherds, or at least no true ones.
The second note; only those who are within the Church have
always been held to be true bishops. That is, those who were shown to descend
from the apostles through a legitimate succession and ordination. All
others were thieves and robbers, obviously who did not enter through the gate,
but went in from another place.
…
The third note requires two things; that some bishop should
rightly be said to descend from the apostles, and hence be a legitimate bishop.
One is succession, the other is
ordination. As to succession, it requires that he who desires to be counted
as a true bishop should succeed some apostle, in the way that Clement succeeded
Peter, and Polycarp succeeded John.
…
As far as ordination, it
is required that for one to be a bishop, he was ordained by three bishops, who
even themselves were ordained by others, and these by others, until one should
arrive at the apostles. This is clearly held in canon 1 of the Apostolic
Canons, where it is commanded that a bishop should be ordained by two or three
bishops, that is by two assisting the metropolitan, or by many.
...
I say secondly, the
argument we advance from legitimate succession is to particularly prove it is
not a Church where there is no succession, which is evident; but it doesn’t
necessarily follow that there is a Church where there is a succession.
Therefore, by this argument we evidently prove that there is no Church among
the Lutherans. On the other hand, that there is no Church among the Greeks, we
prove in another way, for without a doubt they were convicted of schism and
heresy in three plenary councils, of the Lateran, Lyons and Florence,
particularly their heresy denying the procession of the Holy Spirit from the
Son, which is a manifest heresy, and Lutherans and Calvinists also affirm that.
Lastly, add that all
those patriarchal Churches had manifest heretics for bishops for a long time,
and hence the succession of the old shepherds was interrupted.
Footnotes:
93 Irenaeus bk. 3. Ch. 3
94 Tertullian, De praescript.
95 Epiphanius, Haeres., 27.
96 Optatus, Contra Parmenianum, bk. 2.
97 Augustine, In Epist. 165 ad Generosum.
98 Augustine, Contra epist. Fundamenti, ch. 4.
9.
Indefectibility of the
Roman Clergy
According to St. Robert Bellarmine it
is at least theologically certain that the diocese of Rome must have at least
one legitimate bishop (i.e., a bishop with formal succession) teaching in a
Catholic way. Bellarmine writes,
Therefore
we come to the first proposition.
The Supreme Pontiff can in no case err when he teaches the whole Church in
those matters which pertain to faith. This is against the first and second
opinion we laid down in the last chapter, and in favor of the fourth.
...
Our
adversaries, however, object to this explanation. Firstly, because there was no
Roman Church when Christ promised to Peter that his faith would not fail nor
did the Lord ever mention the Roman See. Therefore, how can it be gathered that
the Lord promised something to the Roman See when he said, “I have prayed for
thee, etc.”?
…
The second
proposition. Not only can the Roman Pontiff not err in faith,
but even the particular Roman Church
cannot err. In this place it must be observed that the strength of the
Roman Church in faith should be received in one sense, and the strength of the
Pontiff in another. The Pope cannot err from a judicial error, that is, while
he judges and defines a question of faith; but the Roman Church, that is, the
people and the Roman clergy, cannot so err from a personal error so that
everyone would err and there would be no faithful in the Roman Church adhering
to the Pope. Even though individuals might err on their own, still it cannot
happen that all will err as a body and the whole Roman Church become apostate.
Moreover,
that the Roman Church cannot err in the manner explained can still be
understood in two ways: In one way,
that it cannot err while the Apostolic See continues to be at Rome; it
would be otherwise if the See were to be transferred somewhere else. In the
second way, that it simply cannot err or defect because the Apostolic See can
never be transferred from Rome to another place. And indeed, following the earlier sense, our
proposition is very true and perhaps as true as the first proposition
concerning the Pope….
I add
even the testimony of two Popes, who also were condemned by heretics, but were
received with the greatest honor by Catholics. One is Pope Martin V, who in his
Bull, which he published approving the Council of Constance, thought that they
who thought differently than the Roman Church or the Sacraments or on the
articles of faith should be held as heretics.
The
other is Pope Sixtus IV, who first through the Synod of Álcala, then by
himself, condemned the articles of a certain Peter of Oxford [sic; Peter de
Osma], one of which was that the Church
of the city of Rome could err. And although this seems to be understood
particularly on account of the Pope, still, because the Roman Church is not
only the Pope but the Pope and the people, then
when the Fathers or Popes say the Roman Church cannot err they mean that in the
Roman Church there is always going to be a bishop teaching in a Catholic way
and a people believing in a Catholic way.
According
to Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton,
St.
Robert explained this teaching by saying that the Roman clergy and the Roman
laity, as a corporate unit, could never fall away from the faith. The Roman
Church, as an individual local institution, can never fall away from the faith.
Manifestly the same guarantee is given to no other local Church. It is
interesting to note that during the prolonged vacancy of the Roman See the presbyters
and the deacons of Rome wrote to St. Cyprian in such a way as to manifest their
conviction that the faith of their own local Church, even during this
interregnum, constituted a norm to which the faith of other local Churches was
meant to conform. The Roman Church could not possibly be the one with which all
the other local congregations of Christendom must agree were it not endowed
with a special infallibility. In order to be effective that infallibility must
be acknowledged in a very practical manner by the other local units of the
Church militant throughout the world. Actually
the infallibility of the Roman Church is much more than a mere theological
opinion. The proposition that “the Church of the city of Rome can fall into
error” is one of the theses of Peter de Osma, formally condemned by Pope Sixtus
IV as erroneous and as containing manifest heresy.
10. Indeffectibility of the Roman Pontiff as a Private Person
Bellarmine believed that a pope could
never fall into formal heresy, albeit not material heresy. He writes,
With these things being
noted, all Catholics and the heretics agree on two things. Firstly, that the
Pontiff, even as Pontiff, can err in particular controversies of fact, even
together with a general Council, because these depend especially on the
testimonies of men. Secondly, the
Pope can err as a private teacher from ignorance, even in universal
questions of law concerning both faith and morals, just as what happens to
other teachers.
In his treatise On the
Roman Pontiff, Bellarmine writes,
I
respond: there are five opinions on this matter.
The
first is of Albert Pighius, who contends that the Pope cannot be a heretic, and
hence would not be deposed in any case: such an opinion is probable, and can
easily be defended, as we will show in its proper place. Still, because it is
not certain, and the common opinion is to the contrary, it will be worthwhile
to see what the response should be if the Pope could be a heretic.
…
Now the
fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself
to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member
of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the
Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest
heretics soon lose all jurisdiction.
Bellarmine adds,
It is probable and may
piously be believed that not only as ‘Pope’ can the Supreme Pontiff not err,
but he cannot be a heretic even as a particular person by pertinaciously
believing something false against the faith. It is proved: 1) because it seems
to require the sweet disposition of the providence of God.
He
continues,
Those Fathers only
believed that the Pope could err as a private man, which is a probable opinion,
although the contrary seems more probable to us. That is all that Honorius is
accused of, that he fostered heresy in private letters.
Dr. Christian Washburn comments,
Like
Cajetan and Cano, Bellarmine sharply distinguishes between two ways that a pope
can act: he can act as supreme pontiff infallibly defining or as a particular
person (persona particularis). Bellarmine does not use the
expression “singular person” in this context like Cajetan and
Torquemada, preferring the terms “private teacher” (doctor privatus), “particular
teacher” (doctor particularis), or “particular person” (persona
particularis). He describes the error that the pope as a particular person
makes as “personal error” (error personalis) and the type of error the
pope as pontiff makes as a “judicial error” (error iudicialis). For
Bellarmine the former is possible, but the latter is not. Like Cajetan and
Cano, there are only two basic categories: when the pope acts as a supreme
pontiff infallibly defining an article of faith, and everything else which is
subject to error.
Unlike
either Cajetan or Cano, Bellarmine adopts a position similar to Pigge’s
position that the pope cannot be a pertinacious heretic even as a particular
person, calling this opinion “probable and pious,” but he admits that it is “not
certain” and that it is contrary to the “common opinion.” This position met
with a mixed reception amongst early Thomist Jesuits. Francisco Suárez, S.J.
(1548-1617), for example, also considers it pious and probable, whereas
Cardinal Francisco de Toledo, S.J. (1532- 96) explicitly repudiates it as
fanciful and contrary to the tradition.
In any
case, Bellarmine’s “pious” position is often misunderstood as entailing that
the pope cannot teach anything erroneous, but Bellarmine clearly thinks that
popes can and have made serious doctrinal errors. Indeed, Bellarmine freely
acknowledges both that the pope qua pontiff can err on factual questions
and that the pope as a particular person can err through “ignorance even in
matters of faith and morals,” just like any other human teacher. His position
is not that the pope as a particular person cannot be a heretic in any sense,
but only that the pope as a particular person cannot be a heretic by “pertinaciously”
(pertinaciter) believing something contrary to the faith. His point, to
use modern terminology, is that the pope as a particular person can be a
material heretic, but he will not be a formal heretic. Bellarmine notes,
however, that it would be interesting to see what new theological explanations
would be required if a pope as a particular person were found actually to be a
pertinacious heretic. This reflection may seem odd given his position, but this
shows that Bellarmine was humble enough to realize that his “pious” view may be
incorrect.
Bellarmine
makes several arguments for his pious position. First, he extends Christ’s
prayer beyond Peter’s role in infallibly confirming his brethren’s faith to the
pope’s personal faith. Thus, he rejects Cajetan’s and Cano’s position that
Christ’s prayer was limited to those occasions when the pope is intending to “strengthen
your brethren.” Second, Bellarmine thinks that God will providentially arrange
matters in such a way that this evil should never befall the Church. After all,
Bellarmine argues, God could make a heretic speak the truth just as he made
Balaam’s ass speak, but Bellarmine does not think this would be in accord with
his providence. Third, he argues, as we will see, that the fact that there has
never been an instance of a pope being a pertinacious heretic suggests that
there will never be one.
Bellarmine
offers a much lengthier defense of individual popes from the charge of
pertinacious heresy than either Cajetan or Cano, examining some forty popes who
had been accused of heresy by various conciliarist and Protestant theologians.
In some cases, he explains that the pope is guilty of some sinful weakness
rather than the sin of heresy. With Cajetan and Cano, Bellarmine does not think
that Pope Marcellinus and Pope Liberius were heretics, since their actions were
coerced. He does, however, hold that both popes sinned gravely.
There
were, however, more serious examples in which there were at least apparent
contradictions between popes. Both conciliarists and Protestants had alleged,
for example, that John XXII’s Extravagantescontradicted Nicholas IV’s Exiit
when it defined that Christ did own property. Bellarmine notes that this is
only an apparent contradiction, since Nicholas says that at some time Christ
taught perfect poverty while John XXII taught that other times he held
property. Bellarmine is also forced to deal, however, with a real contradiction
between John XXII and Benedict XII. Bellarmine admits, like Cano, that John
XXII’s thesis was incorrect, but he offers two basic reasons why John XXII was
not a heretic. First, the Church had not defined the matter before Benedictus
Deus. Second, John XXII never intended to define his opinion but was
investigating it “in order to discover the truth.” What is clear from this
third example is that Bellarmine thinks that the pope did make a very serious
doctrinal error, even if it was not heretical yet. In effect his explanation is
that the doctrine was not yet defined and that John did not pertinaciously hold
to his private opinion, since he eventually recanted his teaching in the bull Ne
super his (December 3, 1334).
For
what kind of sin can the pope lose his office, according to Bellarmine? First,
he rejects the view of the conciliarists that a pope can be judged for misdeeds
other than heresy. Instead he accepts the doctrine contained in Si Papa
that there is only one exception to the principle that the first see is judged
by no one, and that exception is for the case of heresy. Second, it is not any
form of heresy, but only manifest formal heresy that causes the pope to lose
his office. With Cajetan and Cano, Bellarmine rejects Torquemada’s view that a
pope who is a secret heretic loses ipso facto membership in the Church,
and he does so for reasons similar to both Cajetan and Cano.
How
then is the Church to rid itself of an incorrigibly heretical pope (papa
haereticus)? Bellarmine rejects the view of the conciliarists that a
council can judge and depose a pope for heresy, since the pope is absolutely
above a council. He also rejects Cajetan’s doctrine of the “ministerial power”
(potestas ministerialis) of a council, since he thinks that in
reality this amounts to a form of conciliarism. He notes that when a
thing is made, the action is exercised over the matter of the thing that is
going to be, not over the composite which does not yet exist. When a thing is
destroyed, however, the action is exercised over a composite. Therefore, when
cardinals elect the pontiff, they do not exercise their authority over the
pontiff, since the pope does not yet exist. Were a council to depose a pope,
however, it would necessarily exercise authority over the composite, that is,
the pope. Moreover, Bellarmine turns Cajetan’s principal support for his
position, Titus 3:10-11, against him. He notes that Paul does not require a
judgment of the Church after the two admonitions; rather, the heretic is simply
to be shunned immediately.
Instead
Bellarmine holds that a heretical pope loses the papacy ipso facto, and
therefore the Church can judge him:
A pope
who is a manifest heretic ceases per se to be pope and head, just as he ceases
per se to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: therefore, he
can be judged and punished by the Church.
There
are three points to make about Bellarmine’s position. First, he describes this
position as the “true” and “common” opinion because it is held in the Church by
“all the ancient fathers,” Si Papa, and Pope Innocent III. He notes that
the common opinion is also held by “learned men of our age,” including John
Driedo (1480-1535) and Cano. In Bellar-mine’s opinion, Constantinople III’s
judgment of Honorius confirms this. It is striking that although Bellarmine
absolves Honorius from the charge of heresy, he still holds that the fact that
an ecumenical council judged him means that it must be possible to judge a
heretical pope, even if the council was mistaken in its judgment about the
particular facts.
At
first blush, it may seem odd and contradictory for Bellarmine simultaneously to
hold his “probable and pious” opinion that a pope cannot be a heretic even as a
particular person and to hold that the true and common opinion is that a
heretical pope should be judged. Strictly speaking these two views are not
contradictory. It is after all a doctrine of the Church that anyone, whether
pope or layman, who falls into manifest and pertinacious heresy is no longer a
member of the Church. The pope himself is not exempted from this divine law.
One can
simultaneously hold that a pope who is a manifest and pertinacious heretic is
not a member of the Church and that God has and will providentially prevent
such an occurrence. This is like holding that anyone, including the Blessed
Virgin, who commits a mortal sin and dies unrepentant will descend immediately
to hell after the particular judgment. God, how-ever, gave Mary graces such
that she never committed such a sin.
11. Baptism of Desire
Although most sedevacantists will
accept the doctrine of baptism of desire, a vocal minority (especially the
Dimond brothers and their followers) believe the theory of baptism of desire
was formally condemned by the Council of Trent. They usually cite canon 5 of
the Seventh Session of Trent, which reads: “If
anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let
him be anathema.” Contrary to this view, in the fourth canon of the same
session decreed:
If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not
necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof,
men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification; though all
(the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be
anathema.
In Trent’s decree on Justification (Session 6), the
Council stated:
By which words, a description of the Justification of the
impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is
born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of
the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this
translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration,
or the desire thereof, as it
is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot
enter into the Kingdom of God.
An implicit argument can also be made from Trent’s
decree on Concession,
Hence, it must be taught that the repentance of a Christian
after his fall is very different from that at his baptism, and that it includes
not only a determination to avoid sins and a hatred of them, or a contrite and
humble heart, but also the sacramental confession of those sins, at least in desire, to be made
in its season, and sacerdotal absolution, as well as satisfaction by fasts,
alms, prayers and other devout exercises of the spiritual life, not indeed for
the eternal punishment, which is, together with the guilt, remitted either by
the sacrament or by the desire of the sacrament, but for the temporal
punishment which, as the sacred writings teach, is not always wholly remitted,
as is done in baptism, to those who, ungrateful to the grace of God which they
have received, have grieved the Holy Ghost and have not feared to violate the
temple of God.
The Catechism of Trent
also notes:
But
though these things may be thus, nevertheless to this class of men, the Church
has not been accustomed to give the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has
arranged that it should be deferred to a fixed time. Nor does this delay have
connected with it the danger, as indeed threatens in the case of children, as
stated above; for those who are endowed with the use of reason, the design and
plan of receiving Baptism, and repentance of a badly led life, would be
sufficient to grace and justification, if some unexpected event hinders so that
they are unable to be washed by the saving water. On the contrary, this delay
is seen to carry with it certain advantages.
In his treatise On Baptism, Bellarmine comments on
chapter 4 of the Sixth Session of Trent,
But without doubt it must be
believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when one dies
without Baptism of water not out of contempt but out of necessity... For it is
expressly said in Ezechiel: If the wicked shall do penance from his sins, will no more
remember his iniquities...Thus also the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4,
says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire (in re vel in voto).
In his treatise On the Church Militant, Bellarmine writes,
Consequently, I respond that it is said outside the Church
no man is saved, and this ought to be understood of those who are neither in
fact nor in desire within the Church, just as all the Theologians commonly
teach on Baptism. Moreover, if the Catechumens are not in the Church de facto,
at least they are in the Church in desire, therefore they can be saved. This is
not opposed to the similitude of the Ark of Noah (outside of which no man was
saved), even if he were in it by desire since similitudes do not agree in all
things. For that reason, 1 Peter III compares Baptism to the ark of Noah and
still it is certain that some are saved without Baptism in fact.
Bellarmine
continues in the same treatise,
a) Those who are not
baptized are not members of the Church, but no man knows for certain who might
be truly baptized, both because the character of Baptism is invisible, and
because even when exterior Baptism is furnished, few are present to see, and
consequently the rest ought to be content with human faith.
…
I respond to these arguments: resp. a) That someone might be in the body
of the Church does not require the character of Baptism, but external Baptism;
nor is external Baptism required to reckon someone might be in the Church, but
only that he might be admitted since, if anyone asks to be admitted to the
Church, it will not happen without Baptism. Nevertheless, if someone says he
has been baptized, and the contrary is not certain, he shall be admitted to the
other sacraments, and through this he will be of the body of the Church. Now,
the sign of this is that if afterward it were to become known that he was not
baptized, then he will be expelled from the congregation if he deceived them
and not received again unless after penance he will be baptized. On the other
hand, if it is not his fault, he would not be cast out, rather what he lacked
will be perfected in him. It would not be judged that he was not in the Church,
but will be judged to have entered through another way than the ordinary power.
For this very reason, Innocent III, judged that a priest who was not baptized
was truly in the Church, and commanded sacrifice to be offered for his soul
just as for the faithful. Dionysius of Alexandria, as we have it in church
history, judged that a certain man was truly in the Church whom it was certain
was not truly baptized but only secured the other Sacraments as one of the
baptized.
12. Bellarmine Rejects the Great Apostasy
Bellarmine believed there must always
be legitimate bishops in the Church teaching in a Catholic way. The idea that
all the bishops across the world could apostatize from the true faith is an
essentially protestant belief. In his treatise On the Church Militant, Bellarmine writes,
Now,
our adversaries attempt to show that the Church can defect and at some time did
defect with these arguments.
…
6) The
General Council of Basel deposed Eugene as a heretic and all those adhering to
him and chose Felix, thereupon after the Council was concluded and dispersed,
again Eugene crept into the See without any canonical election and from him
were born as many as were Popes, Cardinal and Bishops afterward, therefore at
least from that time the Church adhering to the Roman Pontiff was not the true
Church and since there was no other visible body, the visible Church perished.
Calvin places this argument in the preface of his Institutes and again in the
last place as though it were his strongest argument, adding, “This is
discovered that it is necessary for them to adhere or to define the Church
otherwise, or else we hold all to be schismatics.”
7) They
advance the testimony of the Fathers and first of all Hilary. “The love of
walls gave you a beginning; you venerate the Church of God badly in buildings,
you badly heaped under them the name of peace; to me mountains, lakes, prisons
and deep holes are safer.” There he says the true Church was so obscured in his
time that it could only be found in catacombs and caverns. Then Jerome,
speaking in the same time, says, “The whole world groaned and marveled that it
was Arian.” St. Basil says the same thing, and St. Bernard, so deplore the
vices of the prelates of their times that they sufficiently show everyone had
gone their own way and there was no visible Church. Then, Chrysostom teaches
that sometimes there is no visible sign by which the true Church could be
recognized, and therefore the only recourse is to return to the Scriptures.
I
respond,
…
ad 6) I
say that the Council of Basel was at first legitimate, for even the legate of
the Roman Pontiff was present, as well as a great number of Bishops, but in the
time that it “deposed” Eugene and elected Felix, it was not a Council of the
Church but a schismatic Council, seditious and of altogether no authority. Thus
it is called in the last Lateran Council, sess. 11, and hence Eugene was always
a true Pope and this clearly another lie of Calvin when he says that this
Council preserved its authority and dignity even to the end. In the first
place, at the time the Council dared to pronounce sentence, there was no legate
of the Pope present and all the Bishops had left, but a certain Cardinal from
Arles usurped the office of president and because the Bishops were very few,
they introduced into the Council a multitude of priests so that it became
against the form of ancient Councils, being composed not of Bishops but of
priests. Next, in the same time another Council was held in Florence in which
the Supreme Pontiff presided and since the Latin and Greek Bishops who sat
there without comparison many more than were at Basel, and together with the
Bishops the Greek Emperor and the legate of the Latin Emperor were present, so
that it could not be doubted which of the two was a true general Council of the
Church. Thirdly, God willed to show what he thought by afflicting Basel with a
plague so horrible that a greater part of the Fathers who were there either
were killed or were compelled to withdraw. Aeneas Sylvius (the future Pius II)
related all of this in his history of the Council of Basel as well as what the
heretics there had recently published as if favoring them on account of the
condemnation of Eugene, when really he did them a great deal of harm. Add that the
Council of Basel was continued at Lausanne and it subjected itself to Pope
Nicholas V, as is clear from his epistle.
ad 7)
Now we come to the citations of the Fathers. To the one from Hilary, firstly I
respond in the way Augustine once did to the Donatists, 375 who objected with
the same testimony, that the Church was at one time obscured by a multitude of
scandals, still it stood out in its most loyal members, just as it did in the
time which Hilary spoke. The Church stood out in Pope Julius I, Athanasius,
Hilary, Eusebius Vercellensis, and then in Pope Damasus, Ambrose, Basil,
Gregory Nazanzien and many others who were steadfast pillars of the Church.
Secondly,
I say that Hilary spoke in that citation on the Church at Milan, in which many
simple people venerated Auxentius as a Catholic even though he was still an
Arian, since Auxentius behaved with such a wonderful subtly the Arians knew
them as one of their own yet he was believed to be Catholic by man simple men.
Hilary meant that no trust should be put in Auxentius even if he seemed to be a
Bishop and preached in the Church and that it would be better to remain in
prisons and caves with right faith than to be in the Church of God with
heretics. Nevertheless, what he said about one city, one Church and one Bishop
cannot be applied to the universal Church. It
can happen that one Bishop in one city and in one temple should teach heresy
but still that all the Bishops in other cities and churches of the whole world
would not do the same thing. To that passage of Jerome I respond, there
are two figures in his words, one of understanding, when he says, “The world
groaned,” for he calls the world a great part of the world, but not the whole
world, the second of abuse, when he says, “and marveled to find itself Arian,”
for he calls the Arians improperly those who subscribe to heresy through
ignorance. He speaks on that multitude of Bishops who throughout the world
agreed with Ariminus and being deceived by the Arians decreed that the term
homoousios (i.e. consubstantial) must be abolished, even though they did not
know what it meant. Certainly they were not heretics, nor did they err at least
materially, just as if some Catholic might advance a blasphemous opinion
externally with the tongue thinking it is a pious prayer, such a man would not
properly be a blasphemer. For that reason the same Bishops, as they were
admonished and recognized the fallacy, immediately corrected their error and
with tears did penance for the blasphemy, even though it was only advanced by
the tongue, and it seemed the whole world marveled and groaned to find itself
Arian.
To
Basil I say that in those epistles he did not deplore the vices of Catholics
but the misery of the Church on account of the infestation of heretics. What
was said in that citation are against Bishops, not against Catholic Bishops as
Brenz thought, but against Arian Bishops. It is perfectly credible that Brenz
erred from malice rather than ignorance. In
the same place that he teaches that Catholic Bishops are not the true Church he
relates from the history of Ruffinus about the holy monk Moses, who refused in
any way to be ordained by the Bishop of Alexandria, who was the primary
Patriarch of Alexandria after the Roman Pontiff. But in the same book and chapter,
Ruffinus says that the Bishop of Alexandria was an Arian and savagely
persecuted Catholics and for this reason Moses refused to be ordained by him in
preference to a Catholic Bishop, thus there is no reason with which one could
excuse or cover-up the fraud and impudence of Brenz. To the quote from Bernard
I say that he rebukes the vices of morals, but not of doctrine, and for that
reason believed that those wicked Bishops were not truly Bishops. He himself
refuted the heretics who said that bad Bishops were not really Bishops from the
Apostolic Institution. To the quote from Chrysostom the response is above,
those words were taken from an incomplete work which either has an Arian
heretic for an author or was corrupted by heretics.
a)
Henry Cardinal Manning
Sedevacantists often cite Cardinal
Henry Manning in support of their thesis of the “Great Apostasy.” If
sedevacantists were even remotely consistent, they wouldn’t cite him at all
because in their mind Cardinal Manning couldn’t hold any ecclesial office given
their view of Cum Ex Apostolatus. In
any event, Cardinal Manning doesn’t suggest that the pope himself will
apostatize from the faith. Instead he implies the exact opposite when he cites
St. Robert Bellarmine. In his prophecy, Manning writes,
The writers of the Church
tell us that in the latter days the city of Rome will probably become apostate
from the Church and Vicar of Jesus Christ; and that Rome will again be
punished, for he will depart from it; and the judgment of God will fall on the
place from which he once reigned over the nations of the world. For what is it
that makes Rome sacred, but the presence of the Vicar of Jesus Christ? What has
it that should be dear in the sight of God, save only the presence of the Vicar
of His Son? Let the Church of Christ depart from Rome, and Rome will be no more
in the eyes of God than Jerusalem of old. Jerusalem, the Holy City, chosen by
God, was cast down and consumed by fire, because it crucified the Lord of
Glory; and the city of Rome, which has been the seat of the Vicar of Jesus
Christ for eighteen hundred years, if it become apostate, like Jerusalem of
old, will suffer a like condemnation. And, therefore, the writers of the Church
tell us that the city of Rome has no prerogative except only that the Vicar of
Christ is there; and if it become unfaithful, the same judgments which fell on
Jerusalem, hallowed though it was by the presence of the Son of God, of the
Master, and not the disciple only, shall fall likewise upon Rome.
The apostasy of the city
of Rome from the Vicar of
Christ, and its destruction by Antichrist, may be thoughts so new to many Catholics,
that I think it well to recite the text of theologians in the greatest repute.
First, Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of
Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Viegas, Suarez, Bellarmine,
and Bosius, that Rome shall apostatise from the faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ, and return to its ancient
paganism. Malvenda’s words are: “But Rome itself in the last times of the world
will return to its ancient idolatry, power, and imperial greatness. It will
cast out its Pontiff”, altogether apostatise from the Christian faith, terribly
persecute the Church, shed the blood of martyrs more cruelly than ever, and
will recover its former state of abundant wealth, or even greater than it had
under its first rulers.”
Here,
Manning is speaking of the age of the antichrist. According to the Gospel
accounts of Ss. Matthew and Mark (Matt 24:24; Mark 13:22; cf. 2 Thess 2:9) the
time of the antichrist will be marked by false signs and wonders, which we
haven’t seen in the past 60 years. In his treatise On the Roman Pontiff (Volume II), Bellarmine offers six
counterarguments to protestant claims of the Pope being the antichrist. The same arguments utilized by Bellarmine can
be applied to sedevacantist claims. Bellarmine writes,
It must be known that the
Holy Spirit gave us six certain signs of the arrival of Antichrist in the
Scriptures: Two preceding Antichrist, namely preaching of the Gospel and the
desolation of the Roman Empire; two accompanying it, certainly the preaching of
persecution, so much that public religion would altogether cease; two
subsequent signs, namely the desolation of Antichrist after three and a half
years and then the end of the world, which we see presently still exists.
Hence, the first proof is taken from the first sign preceding Antichrist. The
Scriptures witness that in the whole world the Gospel must be preached before
the last persecution will come, which will be roused by Antichrist: “This
Gospel of the kingdom in testimony to the whole world, in witness to all the
Gentiles.” The fact that this should happen before the arrival of Antichrist
can be proved by this reason: because in the time of Antichrist the cruelty of
that last persecution will impede all public exercise of the true religion.
…
The second proof is taken
from another sign that will precede the times of Antichrist, which will be the
desolation in every way possible of the Roman Empire. At length, it must be
known that the Roman Empire was divided into ten kings, none of whom will be called
“King of the Romans,” although all will occupy some provinces of the Roman
Empire in the same way that the King of France, the King of Spain, the Queen of
England and by chance some others hold parts of the Roman Empire; at length
they are not Roman kings or emperors, but until they cease to hold those
dominions Antichrist cannot come.
…
A third proof is taken from the arrival
of Enoch and Elijah, who are still living and do so for the purpose that they
might oppose the arrival of Antichrist, preserve the elect in the faith of
Christ and finally convert the Jews; it is certain that this still has not been
fulfilled. There are four Scriptures on this matter. The first, from Malach. 4:
“Behold, I will send the Prophet Elijah to you, before the great day of the
Lord will come, and convert the hearts of the fathers toward the sons, and the
hearts of the sons to their fathers.” The second, from Eccles. 68, where we
read on Elijah: “You who were received in a fiery whirlwind, in the whirlwind
of vast horses. You who are inscribed in the judgments of the times, appease
the anger of the Lord, reconcile the heart of the father to the son, and
restore the tribe of Jacob.” And in chapter 64: “Enoch pleased God, and was
lifted up into paradise, that he should bring repentance to the nations.”
Third, from Matthew 17: “Elijah is going to come, and will restore all things.”
Fourth, from the Apocalypse 11: “I will give my two witnesses, and they will
prophecy for 1,260 days.”
…
The fourth proof is taken
from the fact that it is certain the persecution of Antichrist will be the most
severe ever known, to the extent that all public ceremonies and sacrifices of
religion will cease. We still do not see any of that. Now, the fact that the
last persecution is going to be very severe is clear from what we read in
Matthew 24: “Then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not been from
the beginning of the world, nor will be.” Moreover, we read in Apocalypse 20: “Then
Satan must be loosed,” who was bound even to that time.
…
The fifth proof is taken
from the duration of Antichrist. Antichrist will not reign more than three and
a half years, yet now the Pope has reigned spiritually over the Church for more
than 1500 years. Further, not one of them can be assigned that will have
reigned precisely three and a half years so as to be accounted for Antichrist.
Therefore, not only is the Pope not the Antichrist, but the latter has not yet
come.
The sixth proof is taken
from the last sign following Antichrist, that the end of the world will come
about. For the arrival of Antichrist will be a little before the end of the
world. Therefore, if Antichrist would have come a long time ago, as our
adversaries say, the world should have ended a long time ago. Daniel spoke
twice about Antichrist, 120 once explaining the vision, adding each in turn;
the second, that after Antichrist the last judgment immediately follows. “I
considered the horns and behold, a little horn arose, and three from the first horns
were torn from his face. I watched until thrones were placed, and the Ancient
of Days sat, etc.”
b)
Fr. Elwood Berry
Similarly, when Fr. Berry speaks of Satan creating a
counterfeit church, he is speaking of the time of the antichrist, which is marked
by false signs and wonders. He writes,
Objection
III.— Our Lord did not intend His Church to have the power of miracles; in
fact, He warns against the workers “of great signs and wonders,” who will act
as agents of Satan to deceive the faithful: “False Christ’s and false prophets
will arise, and will show great signs and
wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect” (Matt.
24:24).
Answer.—
Christ is here warning the faithful against the prodigies that the agents of
Satan will produce in the days of Antichrist, to deceive them if possible. Such
prodigies are not miracles, but as St. Paul says, “signs and lying wonders.”
This very warning on the part of Our Lord presupposes the power of miracles in
the Church, for otherwise there would be no reason for Satan to attempt such
counterfeits. There can be no counterfeit coins where there are no genuine
coins to counterfeit. The prophecies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will
imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of
Satan in opposition of the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of
Messias; his prophet will act the part of pope, and there will be imitations of
the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of
the miracles wrought in the Church.
Robert Bellarimine, On Councils: Their
Nature and Authority, translated by Ryan Grant (Post Falls, ID: Mediatrix
Press, 2017), 109.
The New
Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, edited by Johann
Herzog, Albert Hauck, Samuel Macauley Jackson, Charles Colebrook Sherman, and
George William Gilmore (NY: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1910), 125.
Robert Bellarimine, On the Roman Pontiff, Volume II, translated by Ryan Grant (Post
Falls, ID: Mediatrix Press, 2017), 162.
https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2016/01/23/st-robert-bellarmine-and-john-of-st-thomas-versus-john-salza-and-robert-siscoe/
Ballerini, De
Potestate Ecclesiastica (Monasterii Westphalorum, Deiters, 1847), ch. 6,
sec. 2.
Robert Bellarimine, On the Marks of the
Church, translated by Ryan Grant (Post Falls, ID: Mediatrix Press, 2015),
38-39.
