While it is true that St. Robert Bellarmine thought
it impossible that a pope could ever lose the faith and hence
the papacy, he considered this opinion not theologically certain.
For this reason he proceeded to examine the question of what
would happen were a pope to become a heretic. The following extract
from his treatise on the papacy deals with this question.
Please
note that this translation was done by Mr. Jim Larrabee, who also
provided the comments at the end.
"The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for
whom (de auctor. papae et con., cap. 20 et 21) the manifestly
heretical Pope is not "ipso facto" deposed, but can
and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion
cannot be defended. For, in the first place, it is proven
with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest
heretic is "ipso facto" deposed. The argument from
authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that
the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing
himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication
or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding
that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence
of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate
themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope
who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required
to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member
united to us?
"This principle is most certain. The
non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits
(ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of
what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not
a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian,
as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius
(Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap.
20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest
heretic cannot be Pope.
"To this Cajetan responds (in Apol. pro tract.
praedicto cap. 25 et in ipso tract. cap. 22) that the heretic
is not a Christian "simpliciter" [i.e. without qualification,
or absolutely], but is one "secundum quid" [i.e. in
a qualified or relative sense]. For, granted that two things
constitute the Christian - the faith and the [baptismal] character
- the heretic, having lost the faith, is still in some way united
to the Church and is capable of jurisdiction; therefore, he is
also Pope, but ought to be removed, since he is disposed, with
ultimate disposition, to cease to be Pope: as the man who is still
not dead but is "in extremis" [at the point of death].
"Against this: in the first place, if the heretic
remained, "in actu" [actually], united to the Church
in virtue of the character, he would never be able to be cut or
separated from her "in actu", for the character is indelible.
But there is no one who denies that some people may be separated
"in actu" from the Church. Therefore, the character
does not make the heretic be "in actu" in the Church,
but is only a sign that he was in the Church and that he must
return to her. Analogously, when a sheep wanders lost in the
mountains, the mark impressed on it does not make it be in the
fold, but indicates from which fold it had fled and to which fold
it ought to be brought back. This truth has a confirmation in
St. Thomas who says (Summ. Theol. III, q. 8, a. 3) that those
who do not have the faith are not united "in actu" to
Christ, but only potentially - and St. Thomas here refers to the
internal union, and not to the external which is produced by the
confession of faith and visible signs. Therefore, as the character
is something internal, and not external, according to St. Thomas
the character alone does not unite a man, "in actu,"
to Christ.
"Further against the argument of Cajetan: either
faith is a disposition necessary "simpliciter" for someone
to be Pope, or it is only necessary for someone to be a good
Pope ["ad bene esse," to exist well, to be good, as
opposed to simply existing]. In the first hypothesis, in case
this disposition be eliminated by the contrary disposition, which
is heresy, the Pope immediately ceases to be Pope: for the form
cannot maintain itself without the necessary dispositions. In
the second hypothesis, the Pope cannot be deposed by reason of
heresy, for otherwise he would also have to be deposed for ignorance,
immorality, and other similar causes, which impede the knowledge,
the morality, and the other dispositions necessary for him to
be a good Pope ("ad bene esse papae"). In addition
to this, Cajetan recognises (tract. praed., ca. 26) that the Pope
cannot be deposed for the lack of dispositions necessary, not
"simpliciter", but only "ad bene esse."
"To this, Cajetan responds that faith is a disposition
necessary "simpliciter", but partial, and not total;
and that, therefore, even if his faith disappears he can still
continue being Pope, by reason of the other part of the disposition,
the character, which still endures.
"Against this argument: either the total disposition,
constituted by the character and by faith, is necessary "simpliciter,"
or it is not, the partial disposition then being sufficient.
In the first hypothesis, the faith disappearing there no longer
remains the disposition "simpliciter" necessary, for
the disposition "simpliciter" necessary was the total,
and the total no longer exists. In the second hypothesis, the
faith is only necessary "ad bene esse", and therefore
its absence does not justify the deposition of the Pope. In addition
to this, what finds itself in the ultimate disposition to death,
immediately thereafter ceases to exist, without the intervention
of any other external force, as is obvious; therefore, also the
Pope heretic ceases to be Pope by himself, without any deposition.
"Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously
not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that
they are "ipso facto" deprived of all ecclesiastical
jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says:
'We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power
or right'; and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that the heretics
who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though
they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St.
Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics
cannot have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor bind nor loose.
St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir.,
cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same.
"Pope St. Celestine I (epist. ad Jo. Antioch.,
which appears in Conc. Ephes., tom. I, cap. 19) wrote: 'It is
evident that he [who has been excommunicated by Nestorius] has
remained and remains in communion with us, and that we do not
consider destituted [i.e. deprived of office, by judgment of Nestorius],
anyone who has been excommunicated or deprived of his charge,
either episcopal or clerical, by Bishop Nestorius or by the others
who followed him, after they commenced preaching heresy. For
he who had already shown himself as deserving to be excommunicated,
could not excommunicate anyone by his sentence.'
"And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople,
Pope St. Celestine I says: 'The authority of Our Apostolic See
has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian 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 preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.'
"St. Nicholas I (epist. ad Michael) repeats
and confirms the same. Finally, St. Thomas also teaches (S. Theol.,
II-II, q. 39, a. 3) that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction,
and that anything they try to do on the basis of any jurisdiction
will be null.
"There is no basis for that which some respond
to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while
nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose
their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault
clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those
Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not
cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in
relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature
of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated,
that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church,
while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside
the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already
been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit.
3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the
Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.
"Besides that, the second affirmation of Cajetan,
that the Pope heretic can be truly and authoritatively deposed
by the Church, is no less false than the first. For if the Church
deposes the Pope against his will it is certainly above the Pope;
however, Cajetan himself defends, in the same treatise, the contrary
of this. Cajetan responds that the Church, in deposing the Pope,
does not have authority over the Pope, but only over the link
that unites the person to the pontificate. In the same way that
the Church in uniting the pontificate to such a person, is not,
because of this, above the Pontiff, so also the Church can separate
the pontificate from such a person in case of heresy, without
saying that it is above the Pope.
"But contrary to this it must be observed in
the first place that, from the fact that the Pope deposes bishops,
it is deduced that the Pope is above all the bishops, though the
Pope on deposing a bishop does not destroy the episcopal jurisdiction,
but only separates it from that person. In the second place,
to depose anyone from the pontificate against the will of the
deposed, is without doubt punishing him; however, to punish is
proper to a superior or to a judge. In the third place, given
that according to Cajetan and the other Thomists, in reality the
whole and the parts taken as a whole are the same thing, he who
has authority over the parts taken as a whole, being able to separate
them one from another, has also authority over the whole itself
which is constituted by those parts.
"The example of the electors, who have the power
to designate a certain person for the pontificate, without however
having power over the Pope, given by Cajetan, is also destitute
of value. For when something is being made, the action is exercised
over the matter of the future thing, and not over the composite,
which does not yet exist, but when a thing is destroyed, the action
is exercised over the composite, as becomes patent on consideration
of the things of nature. Therefore, on creating the Pontiff,
the Cardinals do not exercise their authority over the Pontiff
for he does not yet exist, but over the matter, that is, over
the person who by the election becomes disposed to receive the
pontificate from God. But if they deposed the Pontiff, they would
necessarily exercise authority over the composite, that is, over
the person endowed with the pontifical power, that is, over the
Pontiff.
"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according
to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself
to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian
and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he
can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion
of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately
lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib.
4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e.
antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate
of St. Cornelius: 'He would not be able to retain the episcopate
[i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated
himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and
from the unity of the Church.'
According to what St. Cyprian affirms in this passage,
even had Novatian been the true and legitimate Pope, he would
have automatically fallen from the pontificate, if he separated
himself from the Church.
"This is the opinion of great recent doctors,
as John Driedo (lib. 4 de Script. et dogmat. Eccles., cap. 2,
par. 2, sent. 2), who teaches that only they separate themselves
from the Church who are expelled, like the excommunicated, and
those who depart by themselves from her or oppose her, as heretics
and schismatics. And in his seventh affirmation, he maintains
that in those who turn away from the Church, there remains absolutely
no spiritual power over those who are in the Church. Melchior
Cano says the same (lib. 4 de loc., cap. 2), teaching that heretics
are neither parts nor members of the Church, and that it cannot
even be conceived that anyone could be head and Pope, without
being member and part (cap. ult. ad argument. 12). And he teaches
in the same place, in plain words, that occult heretics are still
of the Church, they are parts and members, and that therefore
the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope. This is also
the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book I De Ecclesia.
"The foundation of this argument is that the
manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that
is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he
is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even
bad Catholics [i.e. who are not heretics] are united and
are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of
faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult
heretics are united and are members although only by external
union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church
only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics
do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved."
Comments by Jim Larrabee: As to the case of Liberius,
which Bellarmine treats in book IV, chapter IX at considerable
length, he is there concerned not to prove that Liberius was not
deposed, and lawfully deposed (both of which he fully admits),
but that the Liberius case does not argue against infallibility,
nor was Liberius personally a heretic. This involves various
distinctions which people now are failing to make, but are evident
to any theologian. Perhaps I could quote this at length in future,
but for now, let it be said that, while Liberius resisted heresy
both before and after the period of his lapse and deposition (and
that is what the quote from a later Pope undoubtedly refers to),
he failed to do so for a given time. During this time the Roman
clergy "deposed" him, i.e. they considered the papacy
to be vacant, and accepted St. Felix as Pope.
For example (Bellarmine): "In addition, unless
we are to admit that Liberius defected for a time from constancy
in defending the Faith, we are compelled to exclude Felix II,
who held the pontificate while Liberius was alive, from the number
of the Popes: but the Catholic Church venerates this very Felix
as Pope and martyr. However this may be, Liberius neither taught
heresy, nor was a heretic, but only sinned by external act
[emphasis in original Latin], as did St. Marcellinus, and
unless I am mistaken, sinned less than St. Marcellinus."
(lib. IV, c. 9, no. 5)
Further, after explaining that Felix was for a time
an antipope, he continues (no. 15): "Then two years later
came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then
indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical
dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic.
From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although
Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one,
on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that
presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken
from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts;
but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external
works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter],
and condemn him as a heretic.