Sedevacantist
Watch…
CAN THE CHURCH
JUDGE A HERETICAL POPE?
Part II
Derksen and
Cekada’s Avoidance of
the Second and Third Opinions
the Second and Third Opinions
(in Bellarmine’s
De Romano Pontifice)

But none of
this has made it through to our adversaries. They continue to insist that the
Pope’s ipso facto fall from office
for heresy (which, again, is only an opinion)
does not require (and follow) the Church's judgment, and that the secret loss of office can be privately "discerned" by any Catholic Tom,
Dick and Harry in the street. Notwithstanding all the evidence we have presented to the contrary, our
opponents obstinately maintain that it is up to each individual Catholic in the
pew to determine, for themselves, if God had secretly deposed the Pope for the
“sin” of heresy. These heresy sleuths then write articles instructing other
laymen how they too can “discern” if a Pope has fallen into heresy and been secretly
deposed by God. Those enlightened ones who discover the hidden “truth” through
the Sedevacantist gnosis will then join them as part of the true remnant of
“the invisible Church of true believers, known to God alone” (i.e., the
“Sedevacantists”).
Now, what is
interesting about all this is that, for reasons that will become evident as we
proceed, the Sedevacantists have only published the Fourth and Fifth Opinions
from Bellarmine’s treatise, and never bothered to translate the Second and
Third Opinions, to see what Bellarmine had to say about these (at least not
until we forced them to do so by quoting them in our book and articles). And
these Opinions are very short, each consisting of only one paragraph, as
opposed to the much longer Fourth and Fifth Opinions, which they did take the
time to translate. Why is it that Fr. Cekada, for example, never bothered to
provide his readers with these two additional paragraphs, from the Second and
Third Opinions, in any of his articles or videos defending Sedevacantism? Is it
because they are simply irrelevant? Quite the contrary; they are extremely relevant,
as we will see. Was it because he had never actually read Bellarmine’s book
that contained these opinions, but simply relied on what was available online,
like so many of his Sedevacantist colleagues? Nope. We know that is not true,
because when Robert Siscoe cited a section of the Fourth and Fifth Opinion in
one of his articles, Fr. Cekada (in a vain attempt to discredit the article)
provided a screen shot of Bellarmine’s treatise containing all Five Opinions,
and even discussed how many paragraphs separated the quotation that Siscoe
cited. Clearly, Fr. Cekada was well aware of these Opinions, but for some particular
reason “forgot” to translate them for his flock.
Derksen Deletes the Second and Third Opinion
![]() |
Screen shot from NOWatch; 2nd & 3rd opinions deleted |
But what else
is quite curious is that when Mario Derksen of NovusOrdoWatch.com finally
obtained the complete English Translation of Bellarmine’s De Romano Pontifice (recently made available in English for the
first time by Ryan Grant), he too conveniently “forgot” to include the Second
and Third Opinions when he posted the new translation on his website. Actually,
he didn’t forget to provide these Opinions, but instead “accidentally” (wink,
wink) deleted both of them, only providing
his readers with the last sentence of the Third Opinion, along with the Fourth
and Fifth Opinions in full, which everyone had been reading for years. Yes, Derksen
removed
precisely the same two opinions from his article that Fr. Cekada “forgot” to
translate for his followers.
Why was
this? Do you smell a rat? Of course you
do, and you should, especially if you are familiar with the track records of these
two men, which we have thoroughly exposed in this debate. Dishonest Derksen
removed these two opinions from his article (the same opinions that Cekada
chose not to translate for his flock) because these opinions completely obliterate the Sedevacantist interpretation
of Bellarmine’s Fifth Opinion, and instead confirm exactly what we have been
arguing for so many years in our attempts to demonstrate to them that they have
completely misunderstood what Bellarmine was saying. But don’t take our word
for it; let’s allow the facts to speak for themselves.
Why Cekada and Derksen Have Been “Hiding”
the Second Opinion
the Second Opinion
Before
providing and commenting on the Five Opinions, Bellarmine begins with this
proposition:
“A
Pope can be judged and deposed by the Church in the case of heresy; as
is clear from Dist. 40, can. Si Papa: therefore, the Pontiff is subject to human judgment, at least in some
case.”
Bellarmine then
says: “I respond: there are five opinions on this matter,” and proceeds to comment on all five. The First Opinion is that of Albert Pighius, who did
not believe a Pope could fall into heresy at all. Bellarmine referred to this
as a “pious opinion” and as being “easily defendable” but admitted that “it is
not certain,” and indeed the contrary was the common opinion of the day. In other words, the common opinion was (and
is) that a Pope could fall into
heresy. The next four opinions addressed whether,
and if so, how a Pope who did fall into heresy could be deposed (questions of law). This
is what is found in the Second through the Fifth Opinion.
The Second
Opinion maintains that “the Pope, in the very
instant in which he falls into heresy, even if it is only interior, is
outside the Church and deposed by God, for which reason he can be judged by the
Church. That is, he is declared deposed by divine law, and deposed de facto, if he still refused to yield.”
Notice, this opinion maintains that the
Pope is deposed before being judged a
heretic by the Church, the moment he falls into heresy. In other words, the
Pope falls from office, ipso facto,
by committing the “sin” of heresy – a violation of Divine Law – and then the
Church simply declares that he already
lost his office. Now, why do you think Fr. Cekada never bothered to translate
this Second Opinion for his flock, and Dishonest Derksen deleted it before
posting Ryan Grant’s new translation his own website? As we will see below, the
answer is because Bellarmine explicitly rejects
this opinion, which he called “extreme,” and he does so on the ground God will
only remove a Pope from his office through
the judgment of men. Thus, given the fact that
Bellarmine explicitly rejects the Second Opinion, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why Cekada and
Derksen have been avoiding it and hiding it from their readers for years.
Before providing
more detail on Bellarmine’s refutation of this Second Opinion, we will explain
how John of St. Thomas and some of the other theologians we cite in our book
respond to this objection. They argue that just as God himself only makes a man
Pope after the Church itself judges that he should be Pope (by the election),
so too, God will not depose a heretical Pope until men (the proper authorities)
have judged his heresy. Only then will he be deposed immediately by God (one opinion), or deposed by
Christ with the cooperation of the Church (another opinion).
You can see this, for example, in the following quotation
from Suarez, who held to the first opinion mentioned above (deposed immediately by God). In the following
quotation, Suarez is objecting to those, such as Azorius, who argue that the
Church authoritatively deposes a Pope (which is not the Second Opinion
mentioned above). Suarez rejects this teaching, by explaining that just as the
Church elects a man and then Christ makes him Pope, so too should a Pope fall
into heresy, the Church would establish the crime, and then Christ Himself (not
the Church) would depose the Pope. He
wrote:
“Therefore, others [e.g., Azorius] affirm
the Church is superior to the Pope in the case of heresy, but this is difficult
to say. For Christ the Lord constituted the Pope as supreme judge absolutely;
even the canons indifferently and generally affirm this; and at length the
Church does not validly exercise any act of jurisdiction against the Pope; nor
is the power conferred to him by election, rather [the Church] merely
designates a person upon whom Christ confers the power by himself; Therefore on deposing a heretical Pope, the
Church would not act as superior to him, but juridically and by the consent of
Christ she would declare him a heretic and therefore unworthy of Pontifical
honors; he would then ipso facto and
immediately be deposed by Christ…”[1]
What Suarez is
saying is that just as the man elected Pope receives his jurisdiction by an act
of God, through men [the Electors), so,
too, he also loses it by an act of God, through
men [i.e., the bishops who establish the crime]. Accordingly, any ipso facto loss of office would be preceded by the Church’s
judgment, which establishes “the fact” (that he was hardened in heresy) before he would lose his office; it
would not be automatic as soon as the
Pope violated Divine Law by committing the sin heresy, as those who hold the Second
Opinion maintain.
With this in
mind, let’s see how Bellarmine specifically refutes the Second Opinion:
“Jurisdiction is certainly given to the
Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men [who elect him], as is obvious;
because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin
to be Pope; therefore, he is not
removed by God unless it is through men. But a secret heretic cannot be
judged by men, nor would such wish to relinquish that power by his own will.
Add, that the foundation of this opinion is that secret heretics are outside
the Church, which is false, and we will amply demonstrate this in our tract de
Ecclesia, bk 1.”
Notice,
Bellarmine explicitly states that a heretical Pope will not be removed by God,
“unless it is through men” who first judge him a heretic. What this shows is that a heretical Pope is
not deposed when God judges him to be
a heretic (because God even knows when a Pope is a secret heretic). Rather, he is only deposed by God after men judge that he is a heretic.
Now, when we
speak of the “judgment of men,” this can either be the private judgment of any individual
Catholic in the street who has no authority in the Church (and, further, who
doesn’t know the Pope, and probably doesn’t even know the difference between
heresy and lessor errors), or the judgment of the Church (who has the competency
to judge such matters). It goes without saying that the Church alone possesses
the authority to make such a judgment, as we
have demonstrated in great detail in our features on Fact and Law. The human
judgment must come from the authorities in the Church, not private judgment of
laymen in the pew.
For those to
whom it is not evident that a public judgment must come from the public
authorities who have the competency to render the judgment, we can turn to St.
Thomas for help. He explains:
“Since judgment should be pronounced
according to the written law, as stated above, he that pronounces judgment,
interprets, in a way, the letter of the law, by applying it to some particular
case. Now since it belongs to the same authority to interpret and to make a
law, just as a law cannot be made except by public authority, so neither can
a judgment be pronounced except by public authority, which extends over those
who are subject to the community.”[2]
Only the public authorities have the right
to pronounce a public judgment that affects those of the society. St. Thomas
goes on to say that those who render a judgment they have no authority to make
(individuals in the street) are guilty of the unlawful act called judgment by
usurpation.
“Judgment is lawful in so far as it
is an act of justice. Now it follows from what has been stated above (1, ad
1,3) that three conditions are requisite for a judgment to be an act of
justice: first, that it proceed from the inclination of justice; secondly, that
it come from one who is in authority; thirdly, that it be pronounced according
to the right ruling of prudence. If any one of these be lacking, the
judgment will be faulty and unlawful. First, when it is contrary to the
rectitude of justice, and then it is called ‘perverted’ or ‘unjust’: secondly, when
a man judges about matters wherein he has no authority, and this is called
judgment ‘by usurpation’; thirdly, when the reason lacks certainty, as when
a man, without any solid motive, forms a judgment on some doubtful or hidden matter,
and then it is called judgment by ‘suspicion’ or ‘rash’ judgment.”[3]
Now,
when Bellarmine says that a heretical Pope is only removed by God through men, just as he is made Pope by
God through men, do you think he is
referring to individual Catholics in the pew judging him to be a heretic, or do
you think he is referring to the proper authorities? Would God act by deposing
a Pope when an individual committed an unlawful act of judging by usurpation,
or would He do so after the public authority rendered its judgment? To ask the
question is to answer it.
Clearly, anyone
with even half of a functioning brain should be able to understand that when
Bellarmine says God will not remove a Pope except through men, he is referring
to the pubic judgment of the proper Church authorities (the ecclesia docens), not the private and
unlawful judgment of individuals with no such authority (the ecclesia discens). Indeed, just as a man
is elected Pope and receives his jurisdiction from God by the agreement of the proper authorities (who elect him), so too is he removed from his office by
God through the agreement of the proper authorities (who render the necessary judgment). Now we can understand why Fr. Cekada never provided his
followers with a translation of the Second Opinion, and why Derksen quickly
deleted it before posting Grant’s new translation on his website.
While it is true that Bellarmine was primarily addressing secret heresy, the fact that he says a Pope is only removed by God through men, confirms, for the reasons given above, that God will not remove him before the Church judges him to be a heretic – just as Suarez taught above. Hence, Bellarmine’s refutation of the Second Opinion is a refutation of the Sedevacantist’s interpretation of what Bellarmine wrote in the Fifth Opinion, and thus a refutation of the two Sedevacantist musketeers, Fr. Cekada and Mario Dersken. In other words, when Bellarmine said “a manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed,” he meant after the Church establishes that he is a heretic through the judgment of men. Hence, the Pope would have to be a manifest heretic according to the Church’s judgment, not just private judgment, before God will depose him - just as we have been arguing for years.
While it is true that Bellarmine was primarily addressing secret heresy, the fact that he says a Pope is only removed by God through men, confirms, for the reasons given above, that God will not remove him before the Church judges him to be a heretic – just as Suarez taught above. Hence, Bellarmine’s refutation of the Second Opinion is a refutation of the Sedevacantist’s interpretation of what Bellarmine wrote in the Fifth Opinion, and thus a refutation of the two Sedevacantist musketeers, Fr. Cekada and Mario Dersken. In other words, when Bellarmine said “a manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed,” he meant after the Church establishes that he is a heretic through the judgment of men. Hence, the Pope would have to be a manifest heretic according to the Church’s judgment, not just private judgment, before God will depose him - just as we have been arguing for years.
Why Cekada and Derksen Have Been
“Hiding”
the Third Opinion
the Third Opinion
We now come to the Third Opinion. Utilizing wording borrowed from Cajetan,
Bellarmine refers to the Third Opinion as an “extreme.” According to this
opinion, “the Pope is not and cannot be deposed either by secret or manifest
heresy.” In other words, even if a Pope becomes a manifest heretic you are stuck with him and there is no way for him to be removed. This false opinion is precisely
what Derksen argued in his latest piece. If you recall, Derksen said the reason
a heretical Pope cannot be deposed is because he cannot be judged. Therefore,
he said, if Francis is the Pope, you are stuck with him. Is that so, Mario? Not
according to St. Robert Bellarmine.
Before reading Bellarmine’s response, we ask the reader to recall the
famous canon Si Papa, dist. 40, which
we discussed in Part I. This canon, which was on the books from the twelfth century
until the early twentieth century (before, during and after Vatican I),
explicitly states that heresy is the exception to the rule that “the First See
is judged by no one.” Also remember the
statement from Pope Innocent, who essentially quoted this canon when he taught
that he (the Pope) could be “judged by the Church” if he fell into heresy. With these
authorities in mind, let’s see how Bellarmine refuted to this Third Opinion (which
is also Derksen’s opinion) that a
heretical Pope cannot be judged and deposed:
“Turrecremata in the aforementioned
citation relates and refutes this opinion, and rightly so, for it is exceedingly
improbable. Firstly, because that a
heretical Pope can be judged is expressly held in the Canon, Si Papa, dist. 40, and with Innocent.
And what is more, in the Fourth Council of Constantinople, Act 7, the acts of
the Roman Council under Hadrian are recited, and in those it was contained that
Pope Honorius appeared to be legally anathematized, because he had been
convicted of heresy, the only reason
where it is lawful for inferiors to judge superiors. Here the fact must
be remarked upon that, although it is probable that Honorius was not a heretic,
and that Pope Hadrian II was deceived by corrupted copies of the Sixth Council,[4]
which falsely reckoned Honorius was a heretic, we still cannot deny that [Pope]
Hadrian, with the Roman Council, and the whole Eighth Synod sensed that in the case of heresy, a Roman Pontiff can
be judged. Add, that it would be the most miserable condition of the
Church, if she should be compelled to recognize a wolf, manifestly prowling,
for a shepherd.”
Notice,
St. Bellarmine cites canon law (Si Papa)
and the authority of multiple Popes and a council to defend his position that a
Pope can be judged in the case of
heresy, and that, consequently, such a one can be removed from office, thereby
preventing the Church from being “compelled to recognize a wolf” as its
shepherd.
We should also
note that Bellarmine and Cajetan are in complete agreement in rejecting both the
Second and Third Opinions. Here is what Cajetan wrote:
“Three things have been established with certainty, namely, 1) that the
pope, because he has become a heretic, is not deposed ipso facto by human or divine law [Second Opinion]; 2) that the pope has no superior on earth; and 3)
that if he deviates from the faith, he must be deposed, as in C. Si Papa [Third Opinion]. Great uncertainty
remains concerning how and by whom the pope who ought to be deposed will [in
fact] be judged to be deposed [Fourth
and Fifth Opinions].”
Referring to the
Second Opinion in another place, Cajetan explicitly states that a Pope is not
deposed by Divine Law without “human judgment”:
“We say, therefore, that there are two
extreme ways, both of them false:
one is that the pope who has become a heretic is deposed ipso facto by divine
law without human judgment…”[5]
Both
Cajetan and Bellarmine say there must be human
judgment before God will depose a Pope for heresy, and they both explain how the judgment takes place. In Bellarmine’s response
to the Third Opinion, he uses canon law and the teaching of Popes to defend the
position that in the case of heresy, the Pope (not a former Pope) can be judged by the Church.
We will show how Derksen desperately attempted to get around Bellarmine’s
clear teaching in a moment. But first we
will show that Bellarmine’s mode of argumentation (seen above in his reply to
the Third Opinion) is identical to what numerous other theologians teach. They quote
the exact same authorities to defend
the same teaching – namely, that a
Pope can be judged by the Church in the case of heresy.
The first quotation is from John of St. Thomas, who teaches that there
are three offenses for which a Pope can be deposed. “The first,” he writes,
“is the case of heresy or infidelity. The
second case is perpetual madness. The third case is doubt about the validity of
the election. Concerning the case of heresy, theologians and Canon lawyers have
disputed very much [about precisely how the Pontificate is lost]. It is not
necessary to delve into this question now. However, there is an agreement among the Doctors on the fact that the Pope
may be deposed in case of heresy. (…)
A specific text is found in the
Decree of Gratian, Distinction 40, chapter ‘Si Papa,’ where it is said: ‘On earth, no mortal should presume to
reproach the Pontiff for any fault, because he who has to judge others, should
not be judged (judicandus) by anyone, unless
he is found deviating from the Faith’ (Pars I, D 40, c. 6). This exception obviously means that in
case of heresy, a judgment could be made about the Pope.
The same thing is confirmed by the
letter of Pope Hadrian, reported in the Eighth General Council [IV
Constantinople, 869- 870], in the 7th session, where it is said that the Roman
Pontiff is judged by no one, but the anathema was made by the Orientals against
Honorius, because he was accused of heresy,
the only cause for which it is lawful for inferiors to resist their superiors.
Also, Pope St. Clement says in his first epistle that St. Peter taught that a
heretical Pope must be deposed.”[6]
As you can see
(and, no doubt, Cekada and Derksen saw before they decided to conceal this
material from their followers), Bellarmine, Cajetan and John of St. Thomas are
in complete agreement that a Pope can
be judged by the Church for heresy, and these great theologians cite the exact same authorities in support of the
position.
Fr. Paul
Laymann also teaches the same and even cites the same authorities,
including quoting from Bellarmine directly. He also specifically addresses who it is that would be responsible for
rendering the judgment, and needless to say, it is not “Aunt Helen” in the pew,
but the bishops of the Church, who have the competency to render the necessary
judgment. Fr. Laymann also strikes an additional blow to Sedevacantism by explicitly
stating that before the Church renders a judgment (while the heretical Pope is
being tolerated), he retains his
office. He wrote:
“It is more probable that the Supreme
Pontiff, as concerns his own person, could fall into heresy, even a
notorious one, by reason of which he would deserve to be deposed by the Church,
or rather declared to be separated from her. … The proof of this assertion
is that neither Sacred Scripture nor the tradition of the Fathers indicates
that such a privilege [i.e., being preserved from heresy when not defining a
doctrine] was granted by Christ to the Supreme Pontiff: therefore the privilege
is not to be asserted.
"The first part of the proof is shown
from the fact that the promises made by Christ to St. Peter cannot be
transferred to the other Supreme Pontiffs insofar as they are private persons,
but only as the successor of Peter in the pastoral power of teaching, etc. The
latter part is proven from the fact that it is rather the contrary that one
finds in the writings of the Fathers and in decrees: not indeed as if the Roman
Pontiffs were at any time heretics de facto (for one could hardly show that);
but it was the persuasion that it could happen that they fall into heresy
and that, therefore, if such a thing should seem to have happened, it would
pertain to the other bishops to examine and give a judgment on the matter; as
one can see in the Sixth Synod, Act 13; the Seventh Synod, last Act; the eight
Synod, Act 7 in the epistle of [Pope] Hadrian; and in the fifth Roman
Council under Pope Symmachus: ‘By many of those who came before us it was
declared and ratified in Synod, that the sheep should not reprehend their
Pastor, unless they presume that he has departed from the Faith’. And in Si
Papa d. 40, it is reported from Archbishop Boniface: ‘He who is to judge all
men is to be judged by none, unless
he be found by chance to be deviating from the Faith’. And Bellarmine
himself, book 2, ch. 30, writes: ‘We cannot deny that [Pope] Hadrian with the
Roman Council, and the entire 8th General Synod was of the belief that, in the
case of heresy, the Roman Pontiff could be judged,’ as one can see in
Melchior Cano, bk. 6, De Locis Theologicis, last chapter.
"But note that, although we affirm that
the Supreme Pontiff, as a private person, might become a heretic … nevertheless, for as long as he is
tolerated by the Church [i.e., before the bishops rendered a judgment], and is
publicly recognized as the universal pastor, he is still endowed, in fact, with
the pontifical power, in such a way that all his decrees have no less force and
authority than they would if he were a truly faithful, as
Dominic Barnes notes well (q.1, a. 10, doubt 2, ad. 3) Suarez bk 4, on laws,
ch. 7.
"The reason is: because it is conducive
to the governing of the Church, even as, in any other well-constituted
commonwealth, that the acts of a public magistrate are in force as long as he
remains in office and is publicly tolerated.”[7]
Notice,
also, that every single one of these renowned theologians (Bellarmine, Cajetan,
John of St. Thomas, Laymann) refer to the principle “the First See is judged
by no one.” This fact demonstrates that the maxim did not originate with
Vatican I (as many Sedevacantists have alleged), and that these great
theologians were all well aware of the maxim; yet none of them considered that their position (that the Church can judge the Pope in the case of heresy) violated
the principle, due to the explicit exception provided in canon law (Si Papa) and affirmed by Popes Hadrian
and Innocent III.
Derksen’s Desperate Dodge
How in the
world does Mario Derksen seek to get around the clear teaching of Bellarmine
and all the other theologians?
He does so by desperately appealing to a quotation from Cardinal Billot, which
he not only takes completely out of context, but admits to taking out of context. You read that correctly, and
we will prove this momentarily.
After citing Bellarmine’s comments on the Third Opinion (i.e., that a heretical Pope can be judged by the Church),
Derksen writes this:
At first sight, it may indeed seem
like St. Robert Bellarmine is going against what was later defined by Vatican I, namely, that no one can judge the First
See. But as we saw earlier: “This principle, whether taken juridically or
dogmatically, suffers no exception” (Burke, Competence in Ecclesiastical
Tribunals, p. 87). So, what is going on here?
Before
showing how Derken seeks to escape from the clear words of Bellarmine by
appealing to Billot, it is important to note that Derksen’s reference to the
quotation from Burke is also an act of desperation, since Burke is not
referring to the exception that a heretical
Pope can be “shown to be judged” by the Church for heresy. We take great pains
in our book to explain how the Church does this without inappropriately judging
a Pope. In fact, on one of the pages
that Derksen cites in his article (p. 302), we included a footnote (#18), which
says “the Church does not strictly judge the Pope,” and explain how the Church would
establish the crime without inappropriately judging him, as a superior judges an inferior. Needless to say, Burke is not contradicting what
Pope Innocent III, the Canon Si Papa,
and Bellarmine explicitly teach (when properly understood), and for Derksen to suggest otherwise shows that he
has just about run out of arguments. But it only gets worse for Derksen.
So how does
Derksen attempt to get around the clear teaching of Bellarmine, who stated that
“a heretical Pope can be judged,” since “heresy [is] the only reason
where it is lawful for inferiors to
judge superiors”? Here comes Derksen’s
desperate dodge. First, he appeals to Cardinal Billot:
We may safely turn to Cardinal Billot
for help, who addresses the examples given by Bellarmine of Popes Innocent III,
Adrian II, etc., albeit in a slightly
different context [Note: Derksen admits
he is taking Billot out of context!]
‘The authorities who object [i.e., who
say that a Pope can fall into heresy]
do not prove anything. First they cite the statement of Innocent III, in his
Sermon 2 on the consecration of the Supreme Pontiff, where, speaking about
himself, he says: “Faith is necessary to me to such a degree that, although I
have God alone as judge of [my] other sins, I could be judged by the Church
only by reason of a sin that is committed in the faith.” But surely Innocent
does not affirm the case as simply possible [i.e., that a Pope can, in fact,
become a heretic], but, praising the necessity of faith, he says that it is so
great that if, whether or not it is in the realm of possibility, a Pontiff
should be found deviant from the faith, he would already be subject to the
judgment of the Church by the reason that was stated above. And indeed it
is a manner of speaking similar to that which the Apostle uses when
wishing to show the unalterable truth of the Gospel: But though we, or an angel
from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you,
let him be anathema. (Billot, de Ecclesia, p. 630; underlining added.)
Derksen then
tries to commandeer Billot’s comments on whether
a Pope could actually fall into heresy, to explain away the clear words of
Bellarmine, who taught that if a Pope
did fall into heresy he could be
judged by the Church. Here’s how he does
it:
“Put simply, when St. Robert
Bellarmine says that a Pope can be judged in the case of heresy, he means it
in a manner of speaking, much like St. Paul said that an angel from
Heaven who preaches a false Gospel would be anathema (see Gal 1:8-9).
Bellarmine does not mean that an inferior can legitimately render a canonical
judgment against the Pope, his superior, by way of some mysterious exception.
— although this is what Salza and Siscoe insist is Bellarmine’s position
(pp. 300-303) — any more than St. Paul meant that a genuine angel could
actually preach a false gospel.”
As we highlighted
above, Derksen admitted that Billot was
speaking “in a slightly different context” than what Bellarmine was in the
Third Opinion. But for him to be completely honest, Derksen should have said that
Billot was speaking in an entirely
different context.
What Billot was discussing in the
quotation Derksen cited is not whether the Church could judge a Pope if he fell
into heresy (the Third Opinion), but whether the Pope could fall into heresy in
the first place (the First Opinion). Billot was defending the minority opinion
of Albert Pighius, who believed that a Pope could not become a heretic, which is a minority opinion that Billot personally
held. That is the context of the citation, which, again, has absolutely nothing
whatsoever to do with whether a Pope, who did
fall into heresy, could be judged
by the Church. They are apples and oranges. Yet Derksen takes him completely
out of context in order to get around the clear teaching of Bellarmine.
Since Billot was not talking about
whether a Pope who fell into heresy could be judged, the phrase “manner of
speaking” has nothing whatsoever to do with judging a Pope. What Billot was
saying is that just because Innocent III said a Pope who did fall into
heresy could be judged by the Church, does not mean a Pope can actually
fall into heresy in the first place (First Opinion). He is saying that Pope Innocent
III’s hypothetical (if a Pope fell
into heresy, he could be judged), does not prove that the hypothetical (that a
Pope can fall into heresy) could
actually happen. And Billot is exactly right about this point. The statement of Innocent III does not prove that
a Pope can actually fall into heresy, nor was it intended to prove it. Billot then supports his entirely valid argument by referring
to the impossible hypothetical spoken
of by St. Paul, who said if an angel should preach another Gospel he should be
anathema. This is only “a manner of speaking” since a good angel could never do such a thing
in the first place, just like, as Billot thought, a Pope could not become a
heretic in the first place. Again, the
quotation from Billot was addressing the First Opinion, not the Third Opinion.
Yet simply because Cardinal
Billot used the phrase “manner of speaking” concerning whether a Pope can fall into heresy (First Opinion), Derksen claims
that when Bellarmine said a Pope who did
fall into heresy could be judged by the Church, since “heresy [is] the only reason where it is lawful for inferiors
to judge superiors,” he only meant what he said “in a manner of speaking” and
not that the Pope could actually be judged. Folks, this shows how desperate Derksen has become to defend his false
position. He is literally grasping at straws. It also shows why he originally
deleted this Third Opinion from his website. He knows full well that what Bellarmine wrote contradicts his own opinion, and rather than try to claim Bellarmine didn't mean what he said (a difficult sell), he simply deleted it. He was only forced to deal with the citation because we quoted it in our book and articles.
The Dog
Returns to his Vomit
Derksen then goes
on to argue that Bellarmine did not really mean that the Church could judge the
Pope who fell into heresy. Why not, you might ask? Because, according to Mario Derksen,
in such case the Pope would no longer be the Pope! Did you catch that? Yes,
folks, that is called a circular argument, because Derksen begins with the premise that the Pope is a heretic (according to private judgment) who has lost his office, in order to conclude that the
heretic Pope is not actually judged by inferiors (since he is no longer Pope).
And how does Derksen know the Pope is a heretic who has lost his office? Again, by his own private judgment, of course! Just like the dog returning to his own vomit, Derksen ends his piece by returning to the same, worn-out argument that because he personally thinks the Pope is a heretic, it means he is not the Pope.
And how does Derksen know the Pope is a heretic who has lost his office? Again, by his own private judgment, of course! Just like the dog returning to his own vomit, Derksen ends his piece by returning to the same, worn-out argument that because he personally thinks the Pope is a heretic, it means he is not the Pope.
Now, before we provide another citation
from Derksen, let’s again recall the Second Opinion, which Bellarmine rejects.
This erroneous opinion maintains that if a Pope were to fall into heresy, he
would immediately be “outside the Church and deposed by God,” and for that
“reason he can be judged by the Church.” As Bellarmine went on to say, this
opinion claims that the former Pope (who has already fallen from office) “is
declared deposed by divine law, and deposed de
facto.” In other words, according to this erroneous opinion, a heretical
Pope falls from office immediately by committing a sin against Divine Law. When the Church judges him, it is
judging a former Pope. Bellarmine explicitly rejected this opinion, as we saw above, by
explaining that just as God does not make a man Pope without the agreement of
men (the electors) so too he will not deposed a Pope – that is, sever the bond
uniting the man to the office - except through men judging him. With that in
mind, let us see how Deksen tries to “interpret” Bellarmine’s Third Opinion, in
which the saint says “a heretical Pope can be judged.” Here is yet another
desperate attempt by Derksen to get around Bellarmine’s plain words:
“Rather, Bellarmine simply means that if
a Pope were to become a public heretic, he could then be judged by his
inferiors because he would no longer be Pope ... Likewise,
the reason why Pope Adrian II could say that “in the case of heresy, a
Roman Pontiff can be judged”, is not because heresy is some sort of exception
to the principle codified at Vatican I that no one can judge the Pope, but
because public heresy alone — together with schism and
apostasy — is a sin that of its very nature can make a true
Pope cease being Pope…
That is why a superior can then be judged, so
to speak, by his inferiors: because he is then no longer the lawful
superior, but, being a heretic, he is cut off from the Body of the Church. This
is what St. Robert Bellarmine means, and this is also how Cardinal Billot
understands the Doctor of the Church, because he does not contradict St. Robert
in any way.”
We
hope the readers can see what Derksen has done here. He has taken a quotation
from Billot completely out of context, in a vain attempt to argue that
Bellarmine meant the exact opposite
of what he actually said. Bellarmine rejected the idea that God would depose a Pope ipso facto without first being judged by men; rather, the proper authorities in the Church (the bishops) first judge the fact of heresy, then God authoritatively deposes the Pope.
But according to Derksen's "interpretation," when Bellarmine
says “a heretical Pope can be
judged,” it really means a man who is “no
longer the Pope” can be judged. While Bellarmine says “a Roman Pontiff can be judged,”
Derksen says the one who “ceases
being Pope” is judged. While Bellarmine says “the Pontiff is subject to human judgment,” Derksen says “no one can judge the Pope.”
While Bellarmine says “heresy is
the only reason where it is
lawful for inferiors to judge superiors,”
Derksen says “heresy is not
some sort of exception” to the rule,” and that the man the Church judges “is no longer the lawful superior.”
Derksen could not be more guilty of
completely reversing the plain
meaning of Bellarmine’s teaching, by claiming he meant the exact opposite of what he actually says. Bellarmine
never once says a Pope falls from office before
the Church judges him to be a manifest heretic. In fact, he explicitly rejects this in the
Second Opinion when he refutes those who claim a Pope is deposed by Divine Law,
without being judged by men.
As anyone with eyes can see, we have
forced Mario Derksen into dealing with Bellarmine’s comments on the Second and
Third Opinion, and the results are quite ugly: Derksen has been forced to
reject Bellarmine’s teaching, all the while pretending that he agrees with
Bellarmine, even though his "interpretation" of the Doctor of the Church is the exact
opposite of what he actually said. If anyone has honestly
followed what we have presented in this feature, he can reach only one
conclusion: Mario Derksen has just conceded that St. Robert Bellarmine completely refutes his Sedevacantist
position; and all the linguistic gymnastics in the world will not make it
otherwise. Derksen has been defeated.
Mystici Corporis Christi
Before
concluding, let us once again briefly address the quote of Pope Pius XII from Mystici Corporis Christi. This was
addressed more thoroughly in our book, and even in our articles before the book came out. Nevertheless,
since the Sedevacantists continue to cite this “proof-text” in support of their
position, we will address it once more.
In order to justify their claim that a Bishop
or Pope will lose his office by committing the sin of heresy against Divine Law
(which is judged by them, of course), they cite an English translation of Pius
XII’s teaching, which simply says:
“For not every sin, however grave it may
be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as
does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
First, Pius XII
is simply repeating what everyone knows, namely, that heresy, schism and apostasy
differ from other offenses, such as murder, lying or stealing, since the latter
do not cut a person off from the Church.
If a person murders another person, as bad as that is, it does not make
him a non-Catholic. On the contrary, if a person completely abandons the
Christian religion (apostate), or publicly defects from the Church by joining
an Orthodox sect or a Protestant denomination, he severs himself from the
Church. That is all Pius XII is saying. But a person who merely commits the internal sin of heresy is not severed from the
Church. And this explains why, in the above quotation, Pius XII
did not use the word peccatum (sin),
but the Latin word admissum, which
can just as easily be translated as “crime.” For example, in the Lewis and
Short Latin dictionary, admissum is
defined as: “A wrong done, a trespass, fault, crime.”[8]
And guess what? If
you translate the teaching of Pius XII as saying “For not every crime (admissum), however grave it may
be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as
does schism or heresy or apostasy,” the teaching fits perfectly with the
practice of the Church, since the Church does not consider everyone who has
committed the “sin” (peccatum) of
heresy to be severed from the visible society (the Body), but only those guilty
of the crime. If the sin of heresy alone severed a person from the Body of the Church,
we would have no way of knowing who was, and who was not, a member of the
Church. Instead of being a visible
society, the Church would be “an invisible Church of true believers known to
God alone” which is a Protestant heresy.
And to answer
another objection, if a public sin of
heresy (as discerned by private judgment) severed a person from the Body
of the Church and caused a prelate to lose his office, then it would be left to
each individual Catholic in the pew to determine who is and who is not a member
of the Church, and who does and who does not hold office. Needless to say, this
mentality is absolutely foreign to
2000 years of Catholicism. Hence, this error is refuted by simply looking to Tradition
– namely, how the Church responds to those who continue to present themselves
as Catholics, yet who give external reasons to indicate they are in heresy. In
other words, only a person who commits the public sin of heresy according to the Church’s judgment
(which would then constitute the crime
of heresy) is considered a non-member of the Church. For more on this, see our article “Profession of the True Faith.”
Conclusion
We conclude by noting that it is good that others are able to see, first hand, the kind of dishonest tactics
Sedevacantists use to defend their position, which is precisely what we discovered
while researching our book. Not only do they hide quotations that refute their
position (Bellarmine’s Second and Third Opinions), but they take others (e.g.,
the one from Billot) completely out of context to deceive their readers. They
also “interpret” individual proof-texts (Mystici
Corporis Christi) in a way that is at variance with the 2,000 year-old teaching
and practice of the Church, and then have the nerve
to refer to themselves as “Traditional Catholics.”
In Part III, we will address a long
citation from Billot, which Derksen thinks contradicts what the theologians we
cite in our book teach.
[1]
Tractatus De Fide, Disp. 10, Sect. 6, n. 10, p. 318.
[2]
ST, II-II, q. 60, a. 6 (emphasis added).
[3]
ST, II-II, q. 60, a. 2 (emphasis added).
[4] This now
discredited opinion was held by some in Bellarmine’s day such as Baronius and
Damberger. The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia explains that this opinion has been
completely abandoned. (Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), vol. IV (article on
the Third Council of Constantinople), p. 310.)
[5]
De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et
Concilii, p. 83.
[6] Cursus Theologici
II-II De Auctoritate Summi Pontificis, Disp. II,
Art. III, De Depositione Papae, p. 133 (emphasis added).
[7] Laymann, Theol.
Mor., bk. 2, tract 1, ch. 7, p. 153 (emphasis added).
[8] Lewis and Short, A Latin
Dictionary; Founded on Andrews’ edition of Freund’s Latin dictionary (Oxford:
Trustees of Tufts University, 1879).
The Following are the First, Second and Third Opinions of Bellarmine:
A Pope can be judged and deposed by the Church in the case of heresy; as is clear from Dist. 40, can. Si Papa: therefore, the Pontiff is subject to human judgment, at least in some case. I respond: there are five opinions on this matter.
The Following are the First, Second and Third Opinions of Bellarmine:
A Pope can be judged and deposed by the Church in the case of heresy; as is clear from Dist. 40, can. Si Papa: therefore, the Pontiff is subject to human judgment, at least in some case. 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.
The second opinion is that the
Pope, in the very instant in which he falls into heresy, even if it is only
interior, is outside the Church and deposed by God, for which reason he can be
judged by the Church. That is, he is declared deposed by divine law, and
deposed de facto, if he still refused to yield. This is of John de
Turrecremata, but it is not proven to me. For Jurisdiction is certainly
given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious;
because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin
to be Pope, therefore, he is not removed by God unless it is through men. But a
secret heretic cannot be judged by men, nor would such wish to
relinquish that power by his own will. Add, that the foundation of this opinion
is that secret heretics are outside the Church, which is false, and we will
amply demonstrate this in our tract de Ecclesia, bk 1.
The Third opinion is on another extreme, that the
Pope is not and cannot be deposed either by secret or manifest heresy.
Turrecremata in the aforementioned citation relates and refutes this opinion,
and rightly so, for it is exceedingly improbable. Firstly, because that a
heretical Pope can be judged is expressly held in the Canon, Si Papa,
dist. 40, and with Innocent. And what is more, in the Fourth Council of Constantinople,
Act 7, the acts of the Roman Council under Hadrian are recited, and in those it
was contained that Pope Honorius appeared to be legally anathematized, because
he had been convicted of heresy, the only reason where it is lawful for
inferiors to judge superiors. Here the fact must be remarked upon that,
although it is probable that Honorius was not a heretic, and that Pope Hadrian
II was deceived by corrupted copies of the Sixth Council, which falsely
reckoned Honorius was a heretic, we still cannot deny that Hadrian, with the
Roman Council, and the whole Eighth Synod sensed that in the case of heresy, a
Roman Pontiff can be judged. Add, that it would be the most miserable condition
of the Church, if she should be compelled to recognize a wolf, manifestly
prowling, for a shepherd.
No comments:
Post a Comment