CAN THE CHURCH JUDGE A HERETICAL POPE? ST.BELLARMINE SAY
YES; MARIO DERKSEN SAYS NO.
Part I
In a recent article titled “The Impossibility of Judging a Pope,” Mario
Derksen of NovusOrdoWatch, argues that because the First Vatican Council
teaches that “the First See is judged by no one,” it follows that an heretical
Pope cannot be deposed. He writes:
“[I]t is
high time we looked at what the Catholic Church teaches on the (im)possibility
of judging and removing a valid Pope. In this post, therefore, we will examine
two things: (1) What “judging the Pope” really means; and (2) whether a validly
reigning Pope can be removed or “deposed. ... if Francis is a true Pope now, then no one can take the pontificate away from him. He cannot be
removed from office; he cannot be deposed. You’re simply stuck with him.
Welcome to Catholic teaching on the papacy.”
The problem with Mr. Derksen’s position
is two-fold: First, the famous axiom, “the first see is judged by no one” did not
originate with Vatican I, but has existed since the earlier years of the Church. Second, it has never been understood as
precluding the possibility that a heretical Pope can be deposed, nor did the
First Vatican Council define it as meaning such a thing. If Mr. Derksen
believes the famous axiom prevent an heretical pope from being deposed (or
declared deposed), it is due to his private interpretation of the axiom, which
is contrary to how it has always been understood.
In True or False Pope?, we spend three
lengthy chapters, quoting theologian after theologian, to explain how a
heretical Pope can be deposed without the Church having to claim jurisdiction
over him, and without violating the famous axiom. Simply
put, if a Pope publicly holds to a heretical doctrine (not simply an error, but
a true heresy), the proper authorities in the Church issue solemn warnings (as
a matter of charity, not jurisdiction), informing the Pope that the doctrine he
holds is heretical, and providing him an opportunity to renounce the
error. If he fails to do so, one opinion
holds that he ceases to be Pope and is declared deprived of the pontificate, another
opinion maintains that he is authoritatively
deposed by Christ when the Church performs a ministerial act. Both of
these opinions are just as acceptable today as they were before Vatican I.
Since the teaching of the theologians
and canonists we cite in the book contradict Mr. Derksen’s position, he seeks
to discredit them by making the blanket claim that what they taught can no
longer be held after Vatican I. He writes:
“Before we
proceed to various quotes proving our position with respect to how the Church
understands her teaching that a Pope cannot be judged, we must emphasize that
all the evidence we adduce is deliberately chosen only from the time of 1870
onwards — that is, from the time of the First Vatican Council, which
settled a lot of Catholic doctrine regarding the papacy and made it untenable
to hold a number of theories that had still been permissible to hold up until
that time. In this we distinguish ourselves from the recognize-and-resist
proponents, specifically Messrs. Salza and Siscoe, who in large part advance
ideas that were abandoned after Vatican I because they could no longer be held
in light of the council’s teachings — which is why nearly all of the
proof texts they use come from theologians and canonists who wrote before the
First Vatican Council, such as Cardinal Thomas Cajetan, Fr. Francisco Suarez,
John of St. Thomas, Fr. Paul Laymann, and others. Yet, if these theories were
still acceptable after Vatican I, how come Salza and Siscoe never cite any
theologians or canonists from the twentieth century on these points?”
The notion that “the first see is judged
by not one” originated at Vatican I is a common error amongst
Sedevacantists, which they have appealed to for years in an attempt to
discredit the authorities who directly contradict their position. For example,
the Sedevacantist apologist, John Lane, used this tactic in order to discredit
the teaching of Suarez, when he wrote:
“Francisco
Suarez did in fact hold the discredited minority position that a public heretic
would have to be deposed by the Church. But since his time the
[First] Vatican Council has decreed that the First See is judged by no one.”
The
famous axiom did not originate with Vatican I, but dates back to the early 4th century. It is found in the Synod of Parma (501-502
A.D.), and was used by Pope St. Nicholas in Proposueramus Quidem (685
A.D.), by Pope St. Leo IX in the Epistle In Terra Pax
Hominibus (1053 A.D.) and by Pope St. Gregory VII, in Dictatus
Papae, (1075 A.D.).
In fact, Suarez himself used the phrase in the very treatise
Mr. Lane referred to above, when discussing the case of Pope Macellinus, who guilty
of offering incense to idols. Commenting
on this, Suarez wrote:
“Moreover,
the Council gathered on this matter in the time of Pope Marcellus [i.e.,
Marcellinus], when it declared ‘The First see is judged by no one,’ it said
that concerning the very person of Marcellus, who was certainly a private
person…”
Suarez was well aware of the axiom, yet did not believe it prevented an
heretical Pope from being deposed. We can
see this from the following quotation, taken from the same treatise, in which he
explains how a heretical Pope is removed from office, without the Church having
to exercise jurisdiction over him:
“Therefore,
others 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 [teach that] the Church does not validly exercise any act of
jurisdiction against the Pope, nor is the power conferred to it 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…”.
Notice
that Suarez carefully navigates the famous axiom by saying that the Church does
not act superior to the Pope, but only declares him
a heretic and unworthy of the papacy, at which time Christ authoritatively
deposes him.
Commenting on this teaching of Suarez, Lane
wrote:
“Suarez’s
idea that the Church could … ‘declare him a heretic’ is completely
indefensible. After all, what else is a ‘juridical determination’ but a public
judgment?”
Mr. Lane obviously believes it is
permissible for a private person to “judge” a Pope to be guilty of heresy and declare
the “fact” publicly (as he and his fellow Sedevacantist have done with the
recent Popes), but does not believe it is permissible for the Bishops to do
so. On the contrary, the Church does
indeed have the authority to judge papal heresy (the matter of
heresy), as well as the right to establish if the Pope is pertinacious - neither
of which violate the axiom “the first see is judged by no one”.
What the teaching of Suarez shows is that he was well aware of the famous axiom
– which was later repeated (not invented) by
Vatican I - and did not believe his position violated it; neither did any of
the other theologians we quote in the book, as evidenced by the fact that they
all refer to it. Since Vatican I did not
define the precise meaning of the phrase, but merely repeated the
axiom itself, it cannot be said that the meaning the earlier theologians
attributed to the phrase can no longer be held.
These facts show how mistaken Mr. Derksen was to accuse the authors of True
or False Pope? of spilling “their ink advancing positions by
Cajetan, Suarez, and John of St. Thomas, who wrote well over 200 years before
the First Vatican Council, the teachings of which rendered their theories on
deposing a Pope untenable, as we already said.”
Can the Church Judge Papal Heresy?
That a Pope can be judged by the Church in the case of heresy (not
authoritatively, but in the manner
discussed above), is taught by Pope Innocent III (on two separate occaisions),
and by the famous canon, Si Papa, dist. 40, which was a part of
canon law for eight centuries. The famous canon, which comes from the twelfth
century Decretum of Gratian (1150), reads:
“Let no
mortal man presume to accuse the Pope of fault, for, it being incumbent upon
him to judge all, he should be judged by no one [i.e. ‘the first see is
judged by no one], unless he is suddenly caught
deviating from the faith.”
This canon clearly teaches that heresy is the exception to the
general rule, and this is how it
has always been interpreted by the Church’s approved theologians. For
example, John of St. Thomas wrote:
“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 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...”
Pope Innocent III [d. 1216), who Fr. Cekada said was “one of the greatest
canonists of his time,” teaches the same:
“For me the
faith is so necessary that, whereas for other sins my only
judge is God [i.e. first see is judged by no one], for the
slightest sin committed in the matter of the faith I could be judged by
the Church.”
Now, in case Mr. Derksen objects that
these quotations are
from before Vatican I, we will quote a recent author whose
authority we are sure he will accept – namely, his mentor, Fr. Cekada. Before doing so, however, we should note that
Fr. Cekada praised Mr. Derksen’s article, declaring it to be “dynamite demolition
of True or False Pope”. Here is a screen
shot taken from Fr. Cekada’s twitter account.
We
will begin by quoting the words of Mr. Ferrara, followed by Fr. Cekada’s objection:
“5. FIRST SEE
JUDGED BY NO ONE: “Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur — no one may
judge the First See… That no one may judge the Pope — that is, his
personal sin of heresy as opposed to the heretical import of his words
— is a fundamental truth of our religion…” (p.13.)
In
response, Fr. Cekada will provide: (A) the context of the maxim, (B) a
canonical source for it, and (C) two papal quotes to support his position. Pay
close attention to the canonical source and the Pope that Fr. Cekada quotes:
“(A) Context: Any first-year canon law student
knows that it says no such thing. The maxim “the First See is judged
by no one” is incorporated into the Code of Canon Law as canon 1556. … which
prescribes which ecclesiastical courts have jurisdiction to try which types of
cases.
While it is true that
the pope has the final say on doctrinal and disciplinary matters in the Church
… the maxim itself merely means that there is no ecclesiastical
tribunal before which one could summon the pope or to which one could appeal
the pope’s final judicial decision.
Here is an explanation from a standard canon law manual:
‘Immunity of the Roman
Pontiff. ‘The First See is judged by no one.’ (Canon 1556). This concerns the
Apostolic See or the Roman Pontiff who by the divine law itself enjoys full and
absolute immunity.” (Cappello, Summa Juris Canonici 3:19.) The judicial
immunity of the pope was disputed in church history by partisans of Gallicanism
and Conciliarism, who also maintained that a pope’s decisions could be appealed
to a general council.’
The maxim ‘the First
See is judged by no one’ is a procedural norm, then.
(B) Sources: One of the canonical sources for
the maxim, the Decree of Gratian (ca.
1150) [i.e., Si Papa], reads as follows:
‘Whose sins [the
pope’s] no mortal man presumes to rebuke, for he shall judge all and is
to be judged by no one, unless he is suddenly caught deviating from the
faith [nisi deprehendatur a fide devius].” (Decree, I,
dist. 60 (sic), ch. 6.)”
If anything, one can conclude from this the very opposite of what Mr. Ferrara
maintains: defection from the faith is the one sin of a pope we are
permitted to judge.
“(C) Papal Teaching: In two of his coronation sermons, Pope
Innocent III (1198-1216) — considered one of the greatest
canonists of his time — explained how a pope who falls into the sin of heresy
is “judged.”
‘Without faith it
is impossible to please God.… To this end faith is so necessary for me
that, though I have for other sins God alone as my judge, it is alone for
a sin committed against faith that I may be judged by the Church. [propter
solum peccatum quod in fide commititur possem ab Ecclesia judicari.] For
‘he who does not believe is already judged’.”(Sermo 2: In Consecratione, PL
218:656)
‘You are the salt of
the earth… Still less can the Roman Pontiff boast, for he
can be judged by men — or rather he can be shown to be
judged, if he manifestly ‘loses his savor’ in heresy. [quia
potest ab hominibus judicari, vel potius judicatus ostendi, si videlicet
evanescit in haeresim.] For he who does not believe is already
judged.” (Sermo 4: In Consecratione, PL 218:670)
“A pope who commits
the sin of heresy, then, can indeed be “shown to be judged.”
Now, if we didn’t know any better, we might have guessed that Mr. Derksen’s
mentor, Fr. Cekada, got the foregoing explanation straight out of our book,
since that is pretty close to how we explained it, even if we use a little more
nuance and provide a more thorough explanation.
Conclusion
As we have seen, Vatican I repeated (not invented)
the famous maxim that “the First See is judged by no one,” and its affirmation (not
definition) of this ancient maxim obviously does not nullify the centuries old
teaching that heresy is the exception to the rule. The maxim
and the exception have always co-existed, and both have been
quoted by Popes, canonists, and theologians going back to the earliest
centuries of the Church. The theologians we quote in our book were all well
aware of the famous maxim, and they were all careful to avoid violating it when
they explained how the Church can oversee the deposition of a heretical Pope.
In Part II, we will address the Second and Third Opinions of Bellarmine, and
see that Bellarmine himself quoted Pope Innocent and the Canon Si Papa when
defending that an heretical Pope can be judged by the Church. We will
also comment on a quotation from Billot, which Derksen cites in an attempt to
show that Bellarmine did not mean what he explicitly said. We will show that Mr.
Derksen has taken the quotation out of context (which he actually admits) and
that it in no way suggests what he claims.
