Sedevacantist Watch…
A RENOWNED 17TH
CENTURY CANONIST
REFUTES SEDEVACANTISM
REFUTES SEDEVACANTISM
Those who have carefully read the writings of Sedevacantists over the
years are no doubt familiar with their tactics. If they happen upon a quotation
that they think supports their position, the author in question will be praised
to the skies and the quotation presented as absolute and irrefutable “proof” for
their position. This is the case with any quotation that can be spun to support
their position. On the other hand, when the quotation from an authority of
equal or even greater weight is presented that explicitly and directly
refutes their position, they simply ignore it. Or, if pressed to comment, they
will declare that he is wrong, and move on without a second thought. They will even do this when they are presented with quotations of their own favorite theologians when the particular quotation directly refutes their position. When they believe he agrees with them, he is treated as an infallible oracle whose teaching cannot be doubted; yet when the very same theologian disagrees with them, they will disregard and even publicly reject his teaching.
For those Sedevacantists who are of good will (and based on some recent
e-mails we’ve received, there are many of you out there), we are going to
provide a quotation from one of the greatest canonists of the early seventeenth
century, which directly and explicitly refutes the Sedevacantist
position (which, by the way, the Church herself had already done nearly 800
years prior, at the Fourth Council of Constantinople). The quotation does not
require any additional steps of reasoning for it to apply to the question at hand.
It directly addresses the hypothesis of a notoriously heretical Pope, who is
nevertheless being tolerated by the Church. In other words, even if someone believes that Pope Francis is a notorious heretic, this
quotation directly addresses what would happen if such a one was left in office
and continued to be recognized as Pope by the Church.
The quotation is from Fr. Paul Laymann, who lived at the time of St. Bellarmine and was a fellow member of the
Jesuit Order. Fr. Laymann was born in Germany in
1574, entered the Jesuit Order in 1594, and was ordained a priest in 1603. He
taught philosophy at the University of Ingolstadt from 1603-1609, taught moral
theology at the Jesuit house in Munich from 1609-1625, and taught canon law at
the University of Dillingen from 1625-1632. The Catholic Encyclopedia explains that “he was one of the greatest
moralists and canonists of his time, and a copious writer on philosophical, moral,
and juridical subjects.”
The following quotation dealing with a heretical Pope is taken from Laymann’s book Theologia Moralis, Book 2, Tract 1, Chapter 2, p. 153, published in 1700. It provides us with a clear teaching concerning what happens in the case of a notoriously heretical Pope who is being tolerated by the Church. Here it is:
The following quotation dealing with a heretical Pope is taken from Laymann’s book Theologia Moralis, Book 2, Tract 1, Chapter 2, p. 153, published in 1700. It provides us with a clear teaching concerning what happens in the case of a notoriously heretical Pope who is being tolerated by the Church. Here it is:
“It
is more probable that the Supreme Pontiff, as concerns his own person, could
fall into heresy, even a notorious one, by reason of which he would
deserve to be deposed by the Church, or rather declared to be separated from
her. … The proof of this assertion is that neither Sacred Scripture nor the
tradition of the Fathers indicates that such a privilege [i.e., being preserved
from heresy when not defining a doctrine] was granted by Christ to the Supreme
Pontiff: therefore the privilege is not to be asserted.
"The first part of the proof is shown
from the fact that the promises made by Christ to St. Peter cannot be
transferred to the other Supreme Pontiffs insofar as they are private persons,
but only as the successor of Peter in the pastoral power of teaching, etc. The
latter part is proven from the fact that it is rather the contrary that one
finds in the writings of the Fathers and in decrees: not indeed as if the
Roman Pontiffs were at any time heretics de
facto (for one could hardly show that); but it was the persuasion
that it could happen that they fall into
heresy and that, therefore, if such a thing should seem to have happened, it would pertain to the other bishops to
examine and give a judgment on the matter; as one can see in the Sixth
Synod, Act 13; the Seventh Synod, last Act; the eight Synod, Act 7 in the
epistle of [Pope] Hadrian; and in the fifth Roman Council under Pope Symmachus:
‘By many of those who came before us it was declared and ratified in Synod, that
the sheep should not reprehend their Pastor, unless they presume that he has
departed from the Faith’. And in Si Papa d. 40, it is reported from Archbishop
Boniface: ‘He who is to judge all men is to be judged by none, unless he be
found by chance to be deviating from the Faith’. And Bellarmine himself,
book 2, ch. 30, writes: ‘We cannot deny that [Pope] Hadrian with the Roman
Council, and the entire 8th General Synod was of the belief that, in the
case of heresy, the Roman Pontiff could be judged,’ as one can see in
Melchior Cano, bk. 6, De Locis Theologicis, last chapter.
"But note that, although we affirm that
the Supreme Pontiff, as a private person, might become a heretic … nevertheless, for as long as he is tolerated by the Church, and is publicly recognized as the universal pastor, he is still endowed,
in fact, with the pontifical power, in such a way that all his decrees have
no less force and authority than they would if he were a truly faithful, as
Dominic Barnes notes well (q.1, a. 10, doubt 2, ad. 3) Suarez bk 4, on laws,
ch. 7.
"The reason is: because it is conducive
to the governing of the Church, even as, in any other well-constituted
commonwealth, that the acts of a public magistrate are in force as long as he
remains in office and is publicly tolerated.”[1] (source)
Here we have a renowned canonist, from
the time of Bellarmine and Suarez (and of their same Jesuit order), who
directly addresses what would happen of a Pope fell into notorious heresy, yet nevertheless
was tolerated by the Church and recognized as its head. He explains that in
such a situation, the Pope would retain the pontifical power, and “all his
decrees [would] have no less force and authority than they would if he were a truly
faithful.”
Now, we can already anticipate the
response of the Sedevacantists to this quote. They will no doubt say “canonists
and theologians are not infallible.” That, of course, is true, but no
Sedevacantist apologist has ever
produced an authoritative quotation that contradicts
what Fr. Layman wrote. All they have produced are quotations that speak of the
speculative question concerning how a
Pope would lose his office (which we addressed in our article “Sedevacantist Errors of Fact and Law”).
However, never have they produced a citation that directly addresses what would
happen if a heretical Pope remained in office, while the Church (understood to
be a moral unanimity of Catholics throughout the world) continued to recognize him
as its head. Fr. Laymann, on the other hand, addressed the question directly and cites other authorities who teach the same. And no reputable theologian we
are aware of has ever disagreed with what he taught. That is because Fr. Laymann’s
explanation reflects the constant teaching and practice of the Catholic Church.
