Sedevacantist Watch…
SEDEVACANTISM
PROVEN FALSE
BY THE CASE OF NESTORIUS
BY THE CASE OF NESTORIUS
Sedevacantist apologists will often cite the case of Nestorius as
“proof” for their position that a
prelate who publicly teaches heresy is
deposed, ipso facto, without the
Church having to establish the fact of
the crime. They base their argument on two points. First,
they note that certain individuals (priests and laity), who lived during the
time of Nestorius, cut off communion with him when he began preaching heresy,
and before the Church rendered a judgment. Second,
they point out that Bellarmine quotes Pope St. Celestine who taught that the
excommunications inflicted by Nestorius, after he began preaching heresy, were
null and void, since, as Celestine wrote, “he who had already shown himself as
deserving to be excommunicated [i.e., Nestorius], could not excommunicate
anyone by his sentence.”
The Sedevacantists believe that these two points prove that Nestorius was deposed ipso facto, by “Divine law,” the moment he began preaching heresy. We will address both of these points, and in so doing, prove that Nestorius was not deposed by “Divine law” the moment he began preaching heresy, but was instead deposed after the Church itself rendered a judgment. We will also show that although some people did formally separate from Nestorius before the Church rendered a judgment of his crime, their example cannot be followed by faithful Catholics today. Rather, the example that must be followed is no less than that of a saint and Doctor of the Universal Church, who also lived through the events, and refused to sever communion with Nestorius before the Church rendered a judgment.
 |
| Sedevacantist Bishop, Donald Sanborn |
The Sedevacantists believe that these two points prove that Nestorius was deposed ipso facto, by “Divine law,” the moment he began preaching heresy. We will address both of these points, and in so doing, prove that Nestorius was not deposed by “Divine law” the moment he began preaching heresy, but was instead deposed after the Church itself rendered a judgment. We will also show that although some people did formally separate from Nestorius before the Church rendered a judgment of his crime, their example cannot be followed by faithful Catholics today. Rather, the example that must be followed is no less than that of a saint and Doctor of the Universal Church, who also lived through the events, and refused to sever communion with Nestorius before the Church rendered a judgment.
Sedevacantist
Error #1:
Nestorius
Was Deposed Ipso Facto for Preaching
Heresy
We will allow the Sedevacantist, Steve Speray, to present Sedevacantist
error #1. He begins by quoting the following from St. Robert Bellarmine:
“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.’”
Speray then gives us his private
interpretation of the above quotation:
“In other words, Nestorius lost
his office immediately after he
began preaching heresy, which is why he had no authority to depose or remove
anyone. It happens by Divine law, not by sentence of Church law.”[1]
Notice that Mr. Speray begins by saying “in other words,
Nestorius lost his office immediately.”
That may well be what Steve and his
fellow Sedevacantists would prefer St. Celestine to have said, but that’s not
what the sainted Pope actually said. All he said is that the excommunications
and depositions inflicted by Nestorius, after he began preaching heresy, were later declared to be null and void. But
this in no way implies that he had already been deposed ipso facto by Divine law. It just means that the unjust acts of the one who himself was
on the road to excommunication (Nestorius) were
later declared null.
 |
| Nestorius the Heretic |
In fact, we know with certainty
that Nestorius was not immediately deposed
by Divine law the moment he began preaching heresy. How do we know this? We know it because
Nestorius was deposed three years later
at the Council of Ephesus, after the
Church had investigated the matter and rendered the necessary judgment. The
following is the deposition of Nestorius, as pronounced by the Council:
“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
1)
the
canons; and by
2)
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.
“Our Lord Jesus
Christ, who has been blasphemed by him, has determined through this most holy
synod that the same Nestorius should be stripped of his episcopal dignity and
removed from the college of priests.”[2]
There are a number of important points to note from the above pronouncement:
First, the council summoned Nestorius and even sent bishops to call him to
answer the charges. In other words, the council followed the teaching of St.
Paul (Titus 3:10) in issuing Nestorius formal admonitions (“warnings”) in the
hope was that he would renounce his error[3] so
that he would not have to be deposed. When he refused to respond (thereby
showing his bad will and pertinacity), they investigated the matter and found
him guilty as charged. Next, the council bishops acted on their judgment under the
authority of Pope Celestine. Finally, Nestorius was deposed. And notice the
language used in the deposition: It says Jesus Christ determined, through the council (through the
judgment of the council) that Nestorius “should be stripped of his episcopal
dignity and removed from the college of priests.” If the council stripped him
of his episcopal dignity, it means he possessed it up to that point (since a
person cannot be stripped of what he does not possess).
So we can see just how mistaken the Sedevacantists are to claim that
Nestorius was immediately deposed, ipso
facto, the moment he began preaching heresy (in 428 A.D.), which was three
years before he was deposed at the Council of Ephesus (in 431 A.D.) On the contrary, he was deposed at the council, as St. Bellarmine
himself taught, when he wrote:
“Certainly,
Nestorius was deposed from the episcopacy of Constantinople by the Council of Ephesus
[A.D. 431], from the mandate of Pope Celestine, as Evagrius witnessed.”[4]
In De Membris Ecclesia, St. Bellarmine
further explained that heretical bishop are to be deposed by a council, or by
the Pope Himself.
“And it is certain that the practice of the Church has always been that heretical bishops be deposed by
bishop’s councils, or by the Sovereign Pontiff.”[5]
Obviously, neither Pope Celestine, the Council of Ephesus, nor St.
Robert Bellarmine say anything about a heretical bishop losing his office, ipso facto, simply because a layman in
the street personally thinks he is a heretic, even if he is a bishop who is publicly
preaching heresy.
Today’s
Sedevacantists, based on their erroneous interpretation of Bellarmine, will never
be able to understand how Bellarmine could say “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,”[6] yet,
in the very same book, explicitly state that Nestorius “was deposed from the
episcopacy of Constantinople by the
Council of Ephesus.”[7]
The reason
they will consider these two statements to be in direct contradiction to one another,
is because they have failed to understand that the ipso facto loss of office for a manifest heretic occurs when
the Church itself establishes “the fact” of manifest heresy, in the ecclesiastical forum, not simply
when an individual Catholic personally “discerns” that the prelate is guilty of
the sin of heresy, as Fr. Cekada,
Steve Speray and others imagine (See: Sedevacantist Errors on Fact and Law).
Sedevacantist
Error #2:
We
Can Formally Separate From Prelates Who Preach Heresy
During the Nestorian crisis, there were two different reactions of the
laity and clergy in the face of Nestorius’ heresy: One group reacted by formally separating from Nestorius, who
was the Patriarch of Constantinople, by publicly
severing communion with him. The reaction of the second group was to remain in
communion with Nestorius and wait for the Church to render a judgment, while resisting
his heresy and hoping for his conversion.
St. Cyril of Alexandria, who would later be declared a Doctor of the Church,
took the latter approach. Although he resisted the heresy of Nestorius and even
sent him letters in an attempt to bring him back to the true Faith, he refused to sever communion with him
before the Church itself (the Pope) rendered a judgment – even though St. Cyril
himself held the exalted office of Patriarch of Alexandria. St. Cyril was so respected in hi day that he was
chosen by Pope St. Celestine to be his legate at the Council of Ephesus, which is
the council that oversaw Nestorius’ deposition.
In the encyclical Lux Veritatis,
Pope Pius XI discusses the response of this Doctor of the Church in the fact of
the public heresy being preached by
Nestorius. Pius XI wrote:
 |
| Pope Pius XI |
Here we see the response of a “champion of Catholic integrity,” a
Patriarch, and a future saint
and Doctor of the Church, when faced with a prelate
publicly teaching heresy. We see that
St. Cyril didn’t declare, on his own authority (which, as Patriarch of
Alexandria, was quite significant), that Nestorius was deposed ipso facto by “Divine law,” nor did Cyril
formally separate from Nestorius. On the contrary, he remained in communion
with Nestorius and appealed to the Pope asking that he render a judgment. Even though Nestorius was obviously preaching
heresy and leading souls to ruin, St. Cyril refused to overstep his own
authority by taking matters into his own hands. He certainly did not appeal to
“Divine law” and declare Nestorius to have lost his office, even though he
himself was a bishop with considerable stature and authority. St. Cyril would
wait for the declaration to come from the Church, who alone had the authority
to “strip” Nestorius of his “episcopal dignity.”
 |
| St. Cyril, Doctor of the Church |
This prudent response of St. Cyril would
be vindicated later, when the Fourth Council of Constantinople (in the very
territory where the Nestorian heresy originated) forbade anyone to sever
communion with their Patriarch before the Church itself had rendered a
judgment, attaching the grave penalty of excommunication to any layperson or
monk who did so. The council teaches:
“As divine scripture clearly proclaims,
‘Do not find fault before you investigate, and understand first and then find
fault.’ And does our law judge a person without first giving him a hearing and
learning what he does? Consequently, this
holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no
lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his
own patriarch before a careful inquiry and judgment in synod, even if he
alleges that he knows of some crime perpetrated by his patriarch, and he must
not refuse to include his patriarch’s name during the divine mysteries or
offices. (…) anyone shall be found defying this holy synod … if a monk or lay
person, he must be excluded from all communion and meetings of the church [i.e.
excommunicated] until he is converted by repentance and reconciled.”
While some might argue that the faithful in Nestorius’ day could have
been excused for severing communion with their Patriarch before the Church
rendered a judgment, those who follow their example today certainly cannot be so
excused, because we now have the above teaching from the Council of
Constantinople, which settled the matter once and for all by condemning the
practice.
Which
Example Do Sedevacantists Follow?
Now, guess, dear reader, which of the two groups the Sedevacantists
claim we should follow? That’s right, they claim we should follow those who formally
severed communion with Nestorius before the Church rendered her judgment,
instead of the example of Cyril of Alexandria - even though Cyril is a saint
and Doctor of the Church, and even though the action taken by the former (those
who severed communion by private judgment) has been formally condemned by the
Church.
For example, the Sedevacantist bishop, Donald Sanborn, cited the example
of those who severed communion with Nestorius as our model for today. After quoting a long excerpt which spoke of
priests in Nestorius’ days who had “cut off communion with him [Nestorius],” Sanborn
wrote:
“In this excerpt, the reader should
discover and meditate a few items of note. … the priests of the diocese, at
least those who remain orthodox… have
withdrawn communion from him. They obviously already consider him outside
the Church for the fact of his public heresy, and this even before his official condemnation. … we should take
the example from our orthodox forefathers: break communion with the heretics
...”[9]
Thus, rather than choosing to follow the example of a saint and Doctor
of the Church, Bishop Sanborn puts himself under the condemnation of the Fourth
Council of Constantinople. According to Sanborn, St. Cyril of Alexandria is not
considered one of our “orthodox forefathers,” since he refused to “break
communion with the heretics” before the Church rendered her judgment. And
Bishop Sanborn has the temerity to tell his flock to “meditate” on the actions
of those who contradicted St. Cyril and whose actions now come under the
condemnation of an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church. If Sanborn and his
flock were true Catholics like St. Cyril was, they would “meditate” on his
example (the example of a Doctor of the Church) and the teaching of the
Constantinople IV, and immediately abandon their Sedevacantist position. But
such is not the road for those who are blinded by their own pride.
The Sedevacantist layman, John Lane, also defends the practice of
formally separating from prelates who profess heresy, before the Church has
rendered a judgment. And he too cites
the example of those in Nestorius’ day who did what the Council of
Constantinople would later condemn. In his article titled “Thoughtless Anti-Sedevacantism,”
we find the following objection and answer:
“6. Catholics should not cut off communion with
heretics who claim offices in Holy Church, but should wait for an infallible
judgment, if one ever comes.
“This also has
been answered. The Catholics who immediately rejected Nestorius, until then
Patriarch of Alexandria (sic), when he began preaching heresy, were justified
by the pope after the fact. Their excommunications were declared to have been
null and void, because ‘…he who had defected from the faith with such
preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.’ (Quoted by Bellarmine.)
In other words, once he became a public heretic he lost his office,
automatically and without any declaration by Rome.”[10]
 |
| Sedevacantist Apologist, John Lane |
Conclusion
The case of Nestorius provides us with an invaluable precedent that
completely negates the Sedevacantist thesis. It demonstrates that a prelate (even
a bishop) who publicly teaches heresy – and stubbornly persists in his heresy - is not deposed, ipso facto, by “Divine law,” before the Church renders a judgment.
This precedent alone completely destroys the Sedevacantist theory that prelates
are deposed as soon as individual Catholics “discern” they are heretics by
their own private judgment. And the case of Nestorius is a precedent that the
Church has always followed throughout her history when dealing with heretical
prelates, as we demonstrate in our book (e.g., Archbishop Darboy, Erasmus of
Rotterdam, Michel de Bay, etc.). Indeed, the Sedevacantist thesis, which was
hatched by diseased minds in the confusing decade of the 1970s, is an utterly inexcusable,
anti-Catholic novelty, condemned by the Church, and leading souls to ruin. Whether
the prelate is publicly denying that Mary is the Mother of God (Nestorianism), or
undermining objective truth itself (Modernism), nothing can justify placing
one’s private judgment of the prelate’s ecclesiastical
status above the public judgment of the Church. When people formally separate
from their Pope and bishops, before the Church renders her necessary judgments,
they are severing communion with Christ Himself and with His Church, outside of
which there is no salvation.
For a more thorough treatment of the case of Nestorius, see: A Point-By-Point Refutation Of Mario Derksen OnNestorius
[1] Speray, “The
Remnant’s Latest Canon Law Fiasco” (emphasis added).
[2] The Council of Ephesus,
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum03.htm
[3] See the words of
Pope St. Celestine addressed to St. Cyril of Alexandria, quoted by Pius XI, in Lux Veritatis, No. 17.
429 (emphasis added).
[8]
https://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P11VERIT.HTM.
ary.org/An%20Emperor%20We%20Have.pdf.
[10]
http://www.the-pope.com/contra_objections.html
