Do Sedevacantists Agree with St. Robert Bellarmine?

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.”[1]

 

 

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).[2]

…

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.[3]

 

 

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.[4]

 

            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?[5]

 

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.[6]

 

            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.[7] 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.[8]

 

            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.[9]

 

            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.[10]

 

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.[11]

 

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.[12]

 

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).[13]

…

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.[14]

 

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.[15]

 

 

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.[16]

 

 

            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.[17]

 

           

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.[18]

 

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.[19]

 

 

            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.[20]

…

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.[21]

 

            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.[22] 

 

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).[23]

 

 

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.”[24] 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.”[25] 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.”[26] 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.[27]

 

…

 

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.[28]

 

 

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.[29]

…

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.[30]

 

 

 

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.[31]

…

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…[32]

…

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?[33]

 

 

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.[34]

…

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.[35]

 

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.[36]

 

            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,[37] 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].[38]

 

            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.[39]

 

 

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.[40]

…

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.[41]

 

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[42]

…

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.[43]

…

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.[44]

…

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.[45]

...

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. [46]

 

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.[47]

...

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.”?[48]

…

 

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.[49]

 

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.[50]

 

 

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.[51]

 

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. [52]

…

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.[53]

 

 

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.[54]

 

           

            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.[55]

 

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.[56]

 

11.  Baptism of Desire[57]

 

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.[58]

 

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.[59]

 

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.[60]

 

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.[61]

 

            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.[62]

…

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.[63]

 

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.[64]

 

…

 

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.[65]

 

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.[66]

 

 

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.”[67]

 

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.[68]

…

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.[69]

…

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.”[70]

…

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.[71]

…

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.[72]

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.”[73]

 

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.[74]

 

---

[1] Robert Bellarimine, On Councils: Their Nature and Authority, translated by Ryan Grant (Post Falls, ID: Mediatrix Press, 2017), 240-241.

[2] Robert Bellarimine, On the Church Militant, translated by Ryan Grant (Post Falls, ID: Mediatrix Press, 2016), 141.

[3] ibid., 149-150.

[4] Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, Volume II, Book 4, translated by Ryan Grant. (Post Falls, ID: Mediatrix Press, 2016), 184.

[5] ibid., 131-132

[6] Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, Volume I, Book 2, translated by Ryan Grant. (Post Falls, ID: Mediatrix Press, 2015), 304.

[7] Albert Pigge, Hierarchiae ecclesiasticae assertio per Albertvm Pighivm Campensem, D. Ioannis Vltraiecten[sis] præpositum, ab ipso autore sub mortem diligenter recognita, nouaq[ue]́ accessione passim locupletata... Vnà cum Indice rerum præcipuarum locupletissimo (Cologne: Novesianus, 1551), lib. 4, c. 8, fol. 170.

[8] Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, Volume II, Book 4, translated by Ryan Grant. (Post Falls, ID: Mediatrix Press, 2016), 171.

[9] ibid., 152.

[10] ibid., 152-154.

[11] ibid., 212-213.

[12] ibid., 209.

[13] Robert Bellarimine, On the Church Militant, translated by Ryan Grant (Post Falls, ID: Mediatrix Press, 2016), 141.

[14] ibid., 149-150.

[15] Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, Volume II, Book 4, translated by Ryan Grant. (Post Falls, ID: Mediatrix Press, 2016), 189.

[16] ibid.

[17] ibid., 186.

[18] ibid., 334.

[19] Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, Volume I, Book 2, translated by Ryan Grant. (Post Falls, ID: Mediatrix Press, 2015), 308.

[20] Robert Bellarimine, On Councils: Their Nature and Authority, translated by Ryan Grant (Post Falls, ID: Mediatrix Press, 2017), 109.

[21] ibid., 109-111.

[22] 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.

[23] Robert Bellarimine, On Councils: Their Nature and Authority, translated by Ryan Grant (Post Falls, ID: Mediatrix Press, 2017), 90-91.

[24]Robert Bellarimine, On the Roman Pontiff, Volume II, translated by Ryan Grant (Post Falls, ID: Mediatrix Press, 2017), 162.

[25] Robert Bellarimine, On Councils: Their Nature and Authority, translated by Ryan Grant (Post Falls, ID: Mediatrix Press, 2017), 81.

[26] ibid., 79.

[27] ibid., 44.

[28] ibid., 45-46.

[29] ibid., 128-129.

[30] ibid., 133.

[31] ibid., 128.

[32] ibid., 131.

[33] ibid., 131-132

[34] ibid., 128.

[35] ibid., 129.

[36] Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, Volume I, Book II, translated by Ryan Grant (Post Falls, ID: Mediatrix Press, 2015), 305.

[37] https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2016/01/23/st-robert-bellarmine-and-john-of-st-thomas-versus-john-salza-and-robert-siscoe/

[38] http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/john-ofst.html

[39] Ballerini, De Potestate Ecclesiastica (Monasterii Westphalorum, Deiters, 1847), ch. 6, sec. 2.

[40] Robert Bellarimine, On the Church Militant, translated by Ryan Grant (Post Falls, ID: Mediatrix Press, 2016), 101.

[41] ibid., 103.

[42] Robert Bellarimine, On the Marks of the Church, translated by Ryan Grant (Post Falls, ID: Mediatrix Press, 2015), 38-39.

[43] ibid., 40-41.

[44] ibid., 41-42.

[45] ibid., 42.

[46] ibid., 49.

[47] Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, Volume II, Books 3-5, translated by Ryan Grant. (Post Falls, ID: Mediatrix Press, 2016), 155.

[48] ibid., 159.

[49] ibid., 165-166.

[50] Joseph C. Fenton, The Local Church of Rome, American Ecclesiastical Review 122 (1950): 454-64. https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=608

[51] Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, Volume II, Book III-V, translated by Ryan Grant (Post Falls, ID: Mediatrix Press, 2016), 152.

[52] Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, Volume I, Book II, translated by Ryan Grant (Post Falls, ID: Mediatrix Press, 2015), 304.

[53] ibid., 309.

[54] Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, Volume II, Book III, translated by Ryan Grant (Post Falls, ID: Mediatrix Press, 2015), 171.

 

[55] ibid., 209.

[56] Christian D. Washburn, Three Sixteenth-Century Thomist Solutions to the Problem of a Heretical Pope: Cajetan, Canon, and Bellarmine, The Thomist 83 (2019), 579-585.

[57] For patristic and magisterial sources defining the doctrine of baptism of desire one can read: http://www.baptismofdesire.com/BaptismofDesire.pdf

[58] Trent, Canon 4 of the Seventh Session.

[59] Trent, Chapter 4 of the Sixth Session.

[60] Trent, Chapter 14 of the Sixth Session.

[61] ibid., 15.

[62] Robert Bellarimine, On the Church Militant, translated by Ryan Grant (Post Falls, ID: Mediatrix Press, 2016), 101.

[63] ibid., 102-103.

[64] Robert Bellarimine, On the Church Militant, translated by Ryan Grant (Post Falls, ID: Mediatrix Press, 2016), 139.

[65] ibid., 141-142.

[66] Robert Bellarimine, On the Church Militant, translated by Ryan Grant (Post Falls, ID: Mediatrix Press, 2016), 147-152.

[67] Henry Edward Manning, The Pope and the Antichrist, translated by John S. Daly (Saint-Sauveur De Meilhan, France: Tradi Books By, 2007), 80-81.

[68] Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, Volume II, Book 3, translated by Ryan Grant. (Post Falls, ID: Mediatrix Press, 2016), 21.

[69] ibid., 25.

[70] ibid., 30.

[71] ibid., 35.

[72] ibid., 38.

[73] ibid., 43.

[74] Elwood Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treaties (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1927), 65-66.