The quotation is from Fr. Paul
Laymann, who lived at the time of St. Bellarmine and was a fellow member of the
Jesuit Order. Fr. Laymann was born in Germany in 1574, entered the Jesuit Order
in 1594, and was ordained a priest in 1603. He taught philosophy at the
University of Ingolstadt from 1603-1609, taught moral theology at the Jesuit
house in Munich from 1609-1625, and taught canon law at the University of
Dillingen from 1625-1632. The Catholic Encyclopedia explains that “he was one
of the greatest moralists and canonists of his time, and a copious writer on
philosophical, moral, and juridical subjects.”
The following quotation dealing with
a heretical Pope is taken from Laymann’s book Theologia Moralis, Book 2, Tract 1, Chapter 2, p. 153, published in
1700. It provides us with a clear teaching concerning what happens in the case
of a notoriously heretical Pope who is being tolerated by the Church. Here it
is:
It is more probable that the Supreme Pontiff, as concerns
his own person, could fall into heresy, even a notorious one, by reason of which
he would deserve to be deposed by the Church, or rather declared to be
separated from her. … The proof of this assertion is that neither Sacred
Scripture nor the tradition of the Fathers indicates that such a privilege
[i.e., being preserved from heresy when not defining a doctrine] was granted by
Christ to the Supreme Pontiff: therefore the privilege is not to be asserted.
…
The first part of the proof is shown from the fact that the
promises made by Christ to St. Peter cannot be transferred to the other Supreme
Pontiffs insofar as they are private persons, but only as the successor of
Peter in the pastoral power of teaching, etc. The latter part is proven from
the fact that it is rather the contrary that one finds in the writings of the
Fathers and in decrees: not indeed as if the Roman Pontiffs were at any time
heretics de facto (for one could hardly show that); but it was the persuasion
that it could happen that they fall into heresy and that, therefore, if such a
thing should seem to have happened, it would pertain to the other bishops to
examine and give a judgment on the matter; as one can see in the Sixth Synod,
Act 13; the Seventh Synod, last Act; the eight Synod, Act 7 in the epistle of
[Pope] Hadrian; and in the fifth Roman Council under Pope Symmachus: ‘By many
of those who came before us it was declared and ratified in Synod, that the
sheep should not reprehend their Pastor, unless they presume that he has
departed from the Faith’. And in Si Papa d. 40, it is reported from Archbishop
Boniface: ‘He who is to judge all men is to be judged by none, unless he be
found by chance to be deviating from the Faith’. And Bellarmine himself, book
2, ch. 30, writes: ‘We cannot deny that [Pope] Hadrian with the Roman Council,
and the entire 8th General Synod was of the belief that, in the case of heresy,
the Roman Pontiff could be judged,’ as one can see in Melchior Cano, bk. 6, De
Locis Theologicis, last chapter.
…
But note
that, although we affirm that the Supreme Pontiff, as a private person, might
become a heretic … nevertheless, for as long as he is tolerated by the Church,
and is publicly recognized as the universal pastor, he is still endowed, in
fact, with the pontifical power, in such a way that all his decrees have no
less force and authority than they would if he were a truly faithful, as Dominic Barnes notes well (q.1, a. 10, doubt 2, ad. 3)
Suarez bk 4, on laws, ch. 7.
…
The reason is: because it is conducive to the governing of
the Church, even as, in any other well-constituted commonwealth, that the acts
of a public magistrate are in force as long as he remains in office and is
publicly tolerated.”[1]
No comments:
Post a Comment