Sedevacantist
Watch…
“PROFESSION OF THE TRUE FAITH”
Catholic Definition vs. Sedevacantist Definition
Catholic Definition vs. Sedevacantist Definition
 |
| St. Robert Bellarmine |
In his classic treatise, De Ecclesia Militante, St. Robert
Bellarmine explains that none
of the internal bonds are necessary for one to remain a member of the Church (not even the internal virtue of faith,
which is lost by the sin of heresy –
a violation of Divine Law). Accordingly, Bellarmine defines the Church as the
assembly of men who are united by the three visible,
external bonds. He wrote:
“This one and true Church is the
assembly of men bound together by the profession of the same Christian faith
and the communion of the same sacraments, under the rule of the legitimate
pastors, and especially that of the Roman Pontiff, the one Vicar of Christ on
earth. From this definition, it is easy to infer which men belong to the Church and which do not
belong to it. There are three parts
of this definition: the profession of the true faith, the communion of the
sacraments, and the subjection to the Roman Pontiff, the legitimate pastor.”[1] [2]
In this article, we will consider, in
particular, the external bond of unity consisting of the “profession of the
true faith.” We will consider the formal and material aspects of this bond, and
see how the bond is severed and how it is not. In doing so, we will demonstrate
that the Sedevacantist thesis is based upon an erroneous understanding of “the
profession of faith,” since this external bond of unity is not broken when a Catholic makes a materially heretical
statement, as Sedevacantists contend, but only when a Catholic renounces the
Church as the infallible rule of faith. The Sedevacantists’ error also leads
them to a further error, by believing that whether a cleric professes the true
faith is a matter of personal “discernment” of any Catholic in the street. Let’s
take a look at this critical issue in more depth.
Sedevacantists’ Error on “Profession of
the True Faith”
The universal
error among Sedevacantist apologists is their claim that the conciliar Popes have not sufficiently “profess the true Faith,” and, therefore, cannot be considered
members of the Church. This error, invented by Sedevacantists in the 1970s as
an overreaction to the erupting crisis in the Church, is perhaps their most
fundamental argument. And this small error in principle (beginning) has resulted in a big error in conclusion
(end), by affecting the rest of their ecclesiology and leading them right out
of the Church. Just read the works of Fr. Cekada, Bp. Sanborn, Mario Derksen, the
Dimond brothers, Gerry Matatics, and the rest of them – they all gravely err on what the “profession
of the true faith” means in regard to the external bond of unity (as we will
prove in this article). This foundational error literally pervades all of their
work.
To compound their error, these
Sedevacantists actually believe that it is the responsibility of each
individual Catholic in the pew to “discern” whether or not a professing
Catholic (whether it be a simple layman or the Pope himself) sufficiently
“professes the Faith.” If the they discern that
the individual does not sufficiently do so, then they believe they are entirely
justified – nay, required – to publicly declare that he is not a member of the Church, even if the Church herself considers the
person to be a member in good standing. And, as noted above, their “discerning”
process applies equally to the lawfully elected Vicar of Christ, no less.
This is one of the many errors promoted by
Mario Derksen of NovusOrdoWatch. According to Derksen, if a man is legally
elected Pope by the Cardinals, and accepted by the entire Church as Pope, it
means absolutely nothing if he does
not pass the Derksen “profession of faith” test. If Derksen personally “discerns”
that the Pope doesn’t sufficiently profess the faith, then, according to
Derksen, the man is not Pope, period. Derksen and the rest of his Sedevacantist
colleagues also consider their personal judgment
of his orthodoxy to constitute an absolute, irrefutable “fact” from which there
is no appeal.
According to this reasoning, the “fact”
(i.e., infallible “dogmatic fact”) that the entire Church recognizes the man as
Pope (which, incidentally, provides infallible certitude of his legitimacy, as
we demonstrate in our book) has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether he
is a true Pope, if the individual Sedevacantist personally discerns that the man does not sufficiently “profess the true
Faith.” But don’t take our word for it. The following is taken from Derksen’s
response to an article written by John Salza (which Derksen wrote under his
penname “Gregorius”):
“Salza’s points
about how canon law allows only a Pope to judge a cardinal, etc., are not
relevant to the issue of sedevacantism, because we are not pretending to be
judging a Pope or a cardinal in a canonical trial. Instead, we are merely discerning that a certain cleric does
not profess the Catholic Faith and hence cannot be a member of the Church.
… To sum up: Sedevacantists do not usurp any ecclesiastical authority in
arriving at the conclusion that Benedict XVI is not the Pope, because this
conclusion is not arrived at by means of putative “legal” judgments, which no
sedevacantist has the right to make, but because any Roman Catholic can discern as a matter of fact (not law) that Benedict XVI does
not adhere to all the dogmatic teachings of the Magisterium of the Church until
1958.”[3]
You see, dear reader, if Judge Derksen
personally judges that a Pope does not “profess the faith” – that is, in his
words, does not “adhere to all the dogmatic teachings of the Magisterium,” he
thinks it necessarily follows that the man is not a true Pope.
After all, Derksen reasons, the
“profession of the true faith” is an external bond of unity with the Church. Therefore,
if he discerns that the Pope does not profess the faith, it must mean he
doesn’t possess that bond of unity, and thus is not a member of the Church; and
if he is not a member of the Church, he cannot be the head of the Church. This
is indeed his reasoning, and the reasoning of all Sedevacantists. They
constantly declare that “you cannot be the head of what you are not a member,”
and other such similar statements.
What else is noteworthy is that they
consider a man who has been legally elected as Pope by the Cardinals in a Conclave,
to be no different than a man who simply declares
himself to be Pope (which many Sedevacantists have done). In other words,
their personal discernment theory requires them to put Pope Paul VI, who was
validly elected by a Conclave, and David Bawden, who was “elected” as “Pope
Michael” by his parents and several friends, on the same level. They consider both
claimants to be in the exact same camp, and actually believe it is up to each
individual Catholic in the pew to discern who is a true Pope and who is not. For
example, in a recent webcast Derksen said:
“Look, if you are
able to discern [there’s that word again!] that Francis is not a
Catholic [that is, that he does not sufficiently profess the faith], if that
much is clear, then it is absolutely clear also that he isn’t Pope. … That has nothing to do with ‘judging the Pope’;
it has to do with judging whether a
particular individual who claims to
be Pope, can actually be one. And if that weren’t permissible, well then
anyone’s mere claim to the papacy, would have to be accepted as valid.”
(9:30 – 10:10)
You see, according to Derksen’s
reasoning, if you’re not allowed to decide for yourself if a man elected Pope by
the Church is a true Pope, it means you have to accept, as Pope, anyone and
everyone who simply claims to be Pope. Sounds crazy, you say? That’s right,
because it is crazy. Welcome to the
wacky world of Sedevacantism, where even the identity of the Pope is based on
private judgment, rather than the public judgment of the Church.
Now, you may be wondering what authority
Derksen cites to support his pet theory that if he personally “discerns” that a
Pope does not profess the faith, he is justified in concluding and publicly
declaring that the man is not a true Pope. The answer, of course, is that he
cites no authority, because no such authority exists. Using the words of Fr.
Cekada, the novel theory is nothing but a “tribal myth” of Sedevacantism; a
pure novelty invented by Sedevacantists to justify their rebellion against the
bad but true Popes of the post-Vatican II era. No doubt Sedevacantists have
tried to justify their theory by cobbling and patching together piecemeal
quotations from various theologians (like Protestants do with Bible verses), which
they then publish on the internet, where weak souls are drawn in and deceived.
But such a theory is so completely foreign to true Catholic teaching and practice that the more the Sedevacantists
attempt to defend it, the more confused they become, and the more their errors
shine brightly for those with eyes to see.
Thus, let’s further shine a spotlight on their error, by showing how their tribal myth is rooted in an incomplete understanding of the phrase “profession of the faith,” and how this external bond of unity is actually severed.
Thus, let’s further shine a spotlight on their error, by showing how their tribal myth is rooted in an incomplete understanding of the phrase “profession of the faith,” and how this external bond of unity is actually severed.
What is meant by the “Profession of the
True Faith,”
and how is it lost?
and how is it lost?
To answer this question, we will rely on
one of the Sedevacantists favorite authorities, Fr. E. Sylvester Berry. Fr.
Berry is often cited by Sedevacantists, including Derksen. The lay
Sedevacantist preacher, Gerry Matatics, also highly praises Fr. Berry. In one
of his CD talks, Matatics said one of his “favorite authors is Fr. E. Sylvester
Berry, professor of Scripture at Mt. St. Mary’s Seminary… in the 1920s and
30s.” Matatics went on to refer to Fr. Berry’s
“wonderful book called The Church of
Christ.”[4]
Since Sedevacantists claim to have such
respect for Fr. Berry, we will allow him to explain what is meant by “the
profession of the true faith,” and how this bond of unity is not lost when someone fails to properly
articulate “all the dogmatic teachings of the Magisterium.” Fr. Berry explains
this in the very book that Mr. Matatics referred to, his Apologetic and
Dogmatic Treatise, The Church of Christ.
In his classic book, Fr. Berry refers to
the external bonds of unity as conditions
for membership in the Church. He explains that “subjection to the Pope and
hierarchy” is essentially submission to
the Church’s ruling authority, while “the profession of faith” is
realized by the external and public
submission to the Church’s teaching authority. The “profession of the true
faith” does not require that “all the dogmatic teachings of the Magisterium” be
professed with theological precision; and, more importantly, neither is it
severed by the profession of an erroneous or
even heretical doctrine, as Derksen imagines.
Regarding the condition for membership, Fr. Berry wrote:
“…three conditions
are absolutely necessary and of themselves sufficient for membership; viz.:
(a) Initiation
by baptism;
(b) External
profession of the true Faith which is
had by submission to the teaching authority of the Church.
(c) Submission
to the ruling authority of the Church.”[5]
Let’s repeat the key point for Mr.
Derksen:
The external
profession of the true Faith means submitting to the teaching authority of the
Church, that is, acknowledging that
the Church is the infallible rule of Faith.
Fr. Berry goes on to explain that perfect
observance of the conditions (or
“unities”) is not absolutely necessary for a person to retain membership in the
Church. He wrote:
“These conditions may be briefly
summarized in one phrase:
The reception of
Baptism, and the preservation of the unities – unity of faith, unity of
worship, and unity of government; or in other words, reception of Baptism
and submission to the teaching and ruling authority of the Church. It
should be noted, however, that perfect observance of the unities is not
required for mere membership in the Church; a person need not make an
explicit profession of faith at all
times; nor conform all his actions to it. He need not make a diligent use of
the Sacraments at all times, neither must he be free from all infractions of
Church laws and precepts.”[6]
That the conditions for unity need
not to be observed perfectly at all times is confirmed by the fact that
a Catholic who has drifted away from the sacraments is not, for that reason
alone, immediately considered a non-member of the Church. It is also confirmed
by the many historical examples of Popes and other clerics who taught material
errors and even heresies against the Faith but were still considered members of
the Church (we will provide some of these examples later in this article).
Formal and Material Aspect of the Bond
We can further clarify this key point by
distinguishing between the formal and material aspect of the bond. The formal and absolutely essential aspect of
the “profession of faith” is submission to the Church’s teaching authority, by implicitly
or explicitly professing the
Church as the rule of faith; the material
aspect of this bond is the understanding and material profession of doctrine.
The material aspect can be perfect (i.e.,
when each doctrine is held and professed with theological precision) or imperfect (i.e., when there is an
admixture of error or even material heresy). Since the material aspect of this
bond does not require perfection for
the bond itself to remain intact, we can understand why Fr. Berry would say
that “the profession of the faith practically resolves itself into submission
to her teaching authority”[7]
– which is the formal aspect of the bond.
Hence, this external bond does not
require that every member profess each and every aspect of the faith with
theological precision; nor does the profession of a materially heretical
doctrine sever one from the Church for heresy. This is confirmed by The Catechism
of the Council of Trent, which
explains that,
“a person is not to be called a heretic
as soon as he shall have offended in matters of faith [material aspect]; but he
is a heretic who, having disregarded the authority of the Church [formal
aspect], maintains an impious opinion with pertinaticy.”[8]
This is consistent with the practice of
the Church, which does not immediately excommunicate (or consider
excommunicated) every person who makes a false or even heretical statement. If
all who made a heretical statement immediately severed their membership in the
Church, there would be few Catholics in the world, since a large number of Catholics
have held a doctrine that is materially heretical at one time or another in
their adult life.
Contrary to the tribal myth of the
Sedevacantists, Fr. Berry explains that those who submit to the Church as the
rule of faith, yet who hold heretical doctrines, are not, by that fact alone,
considered to be heretics. He wrote:
“A heretic is usually defined as a
Christian, i.e., a baptized person, who holds a doctrine contrary to a revealed
truth; but this definition is inaccurate, since it would make heretics of a
large portion of the faithful. A doctrine contrary to a revealed truth
is usually stigmatized as heretical, but a person who professes an
heretical doctrine is not necessarily a heretic. Heresy, from the Greek hairesis,
signifies a choosing; therefore a heretic is one who chooses for himself in
matters of faith, thereby rejecting the
authority of the Church established by Christ to teach all men the
truths of revelation. (…) A person who submits to the authority of the
Church and wishes to accept all her teachings, is not a heretic, even though he profess heretical doctrines
through ignorance of what the Church really teaches; he implicitly accepts the
true doctrine in his general intention to accept all that the Church teaches.”[9]
Again, we see that the “profession of
true faith,” required for membership in the Church, is essentially the external
acknowledgment of the Church as
the proximate rule and faith and submission to itsteaching authority. This bond
is not severed by the profession of a heretical doctrine alone. Thus,
even if one were to “prove” that a conciliar Pope made a materially heretical
statement, (which itself is debatable and whose judgment belongs to the Church
alone), it certainly does not “prove” that such Pope lost membership in the
Church.
As even the Sedevacantists would be forced to concede (and to the detriment of their own theory), all the conciliar Popes acknowledged the Church as the infallible rule of Faith; even if Modernism so confused their minds that they professed errors or even heresies, it would not have formally severed this external bond. They all accepted the teaching authority of the Church, and never claimed they were willfully departing from it.
As even the Sedevacantists would be forced to concede (and to the detriment of their own theory), all the conciliar Popes acknowledged the Church as the infallible rule of Faith; even if Modernism so confused their minds that they professed errors or even heresies, it would not have formally severed this external bond. They all accepted the teaching authority of the Church, and never claimed they were willfully departing from it.
This fact was conceded by the notorious
Sedevacantist, Richard Ibranyi, who wrote the following about John Paul II:
“John Paul II
does not believe he is teaching contrary to Church dogma, at least it cannot be
proven that he believes he is. JP2 not only verbally professes to be
Catholic, he also verbally submits to the Catholic Church and the papacy.”[10]
The same can be said about Pope Francis.
In fact, when he was confronted with the allegation that he was a Communist, or
rather, that his social doctrine appeared to be Communist, he replied by
saying:
“I’m sure that I haven’t said anything
more than what’s written in the social doctrine of the Church... I am the one
following the Church… And in this it seems that I’m not wrong. I believe that I
never said a thing that wasn’t the social doctrine of the Church. Things can be
explained, possibly an explanation gave an impression of being a little ‘to the
left,’ but it would be an error of explanation…all of this, is the social
doctrine of the Church.”[11]
Again, even if a material heresy (as
opposed to a lesser degree of error) was professed by one or more of the
conciliar Popes, there is absolutely no evidence that they rejected the Church as the rule of Faith, which is the essential
aspect of the bond.
Cardinal Billot also confirms that a
Catholic - that is, a person who accepts the Church as the rule of faith – yet who professes a materially heretical doctrine,
is not, for that fact alone, a heretic. The Cardinal further explains that a
Catholic who professes heresy cannot even rightly be called a “material
heretic.” As we explain in detail in our book, according to the correct usage
of the term, a material heretic is a person who chooses something other than the
Church as their rule of faith, whether it be the “Bible alone” or a
non-Catholic preacher or sect. Cardinal Billot explains: “material heretics are
those who, being in invincible ignorance of the Church herself, in good faith choose
some other guiding rule.”[12] In other words, a material heretic is an
objective classification which describes someone who is a member of a
non-Catholic sect.
The Cardinal goes on to explain that “the nature of heresy consists in withdrawal from the rule of the
ecclesiastical Magisterium”[13]
(which severs the formal aspect of
the external bond), and not simply the profession of a heretical doctrine
(the material aspect of the bond). What this also means is that even if
Sedevacantists want to claim that the public “sin” of heresy causes loss of
membership in the Church (without the need of the Church rendering a judgment),
it would only apply in the case of those who publicly severed their submission to the Church as the rule
of faith - in other words, those who publicly
defected from the Faith by leaving the
Church of their own will. The public
“sin” of heresy would not be manifest by a person who merely professed a heretical
doctrine, since, as Cardinal Billot explained, the nature of heresy does not consist of the professing a materially heretical
doctrine, but in the “withdrawal from the
rule of the ecclesiastical Magisterium.”
Historical Examples:
A Family Who Embraced
Protestant Errors and Worship
A Family Who Embraced
Protestant Errors and Worship
In our book True or False Pope?, we provide numerous examples of Catholics,
both laymen and clerics, who held to and publicly professed materially
heretical doctrines, yet who were always considered members of the Church in
good standing.
One example is found in an article by
the Sedevacantist writer, John Daly. In this historical case, we see just how “imperfectly”
a person can observe the external bond of “profession of the true faith” while
still remaining a member of the Church.
On January 10,
1907, during the pontificate of Pope St. Pius X, a parish priest submitted a
question to a moral theologian on the staff at L'Ami Du Clergé,
concerning a family at his parish. The members of the family were all baptized
Catholics and openly professed to being Catholic, but they had stopped
regularly attending Mass, sent their children to Protestant schools, and from time
to time attended Protestant services themselves. They even professed Protestant
heresies (false doctrines) about the Blessed Sacrament. According to Mr.
Daly, they went so far as having “blasphemed the Blessed Eucharist to the
parish priest, relying on typically Protestant arguments.”[14]
Even so, the
family professed that they were Catholics, not Protestants, and wanted to have
their newborn children baptized by the parish priest. The priest contacted L'Ami
Du Clergé for guidance in answering several questions. He wanted to know
“whether the parents had incurred excommunication, whether they could be buried
as Catholics, and whether, if he should manage to convert any of them, they
would have to make a formal abjuration.”[15]
L'Ami Du
Clergé, a highly respected publication that was
approved and even encouraged by Pope St. Pius X at the time, replied by saying
that the family’s attendance at Protestant services was not proof that they
intended to leave the Church (which was confirmed by the fact that they
publicly declared themselves to be Catholics). Because they continued to
profess being Catholics, the moral theologian concluded that, even though they
publicly professed heretical doctrines about the Blessed Sacrament,
“these poor misguided souls had no wish to knowingly and willingly reject
the dogma of the Church concerning the Holy Eucharist.”[16]
Mr. Daly
concluded his comments on this case by saying:
“So in evaluating the questions posed by the parish priest, the Ami du
Clergé replied that the culprits were still members of the Catholic Church,
were not excommunicated, had no need to make formal abjuration of their errors,
but only to repair the scandal given...”[17]
This historical
example from the days of Pope St. Pius X shows us just how imperfectly a Catholic can observe the material aspect of the
“profession of the true faith,” while still being considered a member of
the Church.
Erasmus of Rotterdam
Another example
we can cite is that of the priest, Erasmus of Rotterdam, who was accused of
heresy by some of his contemporaries due to the doctrines he professed, yet was
always considered a member of the Church in good standing.
St. Alphonsus said that Erasmus wrote in
an obscure manner concerning dogma and even began to criticize the Fathers of
the Church. His errors eventually became more pronounced, which led the French
Dominican theologian, Noel Alexandre, to say “the more works he wrote, the more
errors he published.”[18]
Many Catholics openly accused him of professing heretical doctrine, and for
good reason.
St. Alphonsus
said that Erasmus “called the Invocation of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints
idolatry; condemned Monasteries, ridiculed the Religious…and condemned their
vows and rules.”[19] He “was
opposed to the Celibacy of the Clergy, and turned into mockery Papal
Indulgences, relics of Saints, feasts and fasts, auricular Confession.”[20]
As a prelude to Luther, he claimed “that by Faith alone man is justified, and
even threw doubt on the authority of the Scripture and Councils.”[21]
In one of his published books he even declared it “rash to call the Holy Ghost
God.”[22]
Certainly, Erasmus was a forerunner of the Protestant revolt, and, if he persisted in these errors at a canonical trial (by refusing to “hear the Church,” thus formally severing the bond), would have been considered a heretic even by Vatican II standards. But in spite of all his egregious, public doctrinal errors against the Faith, Erasmus was not considered a public heretic or a non-member of the Church by his contemporaries, or even by the Popes reigning at the time. Rather, as St. Alphonsus reported, Erasmus was “esteemed by several Popes, who invited him to Rome, to write against Luther, and it was even reported that Pope Paul III intended him for the Cardinalship.”[23] After listing the above errors and heresies professed by Erasmus of Rotterdam, St. Alphonsus concludes his historical account of his life by saying: “We may conclude with Bernini, that he died with the character of an unsound Catholic, but not a heretic, as he submitted his writings to the judgment of the Church.”[24]
Certainly, Erasmus was a forerunner of the Protestant revolt, and, if he persisted in these errors at a canonical trial (by refusing to “hear the Church,” thus formally severing the bond), would have been considered a heretic even by Vatican II standards. But in spite of all his egregious, public doctrinal errors against the Faith, Erasmus was not considered a public heretic or a non-member of the Church by his contemporaries, or even by the Popes reigning at the time. Rather, as St. Alphonsus reported, Erasmus was “esteemed by several Popes, who invited him to Rome, to write against Luther, and it was even reported that Pope Paul III intended him for the Cardinalship.”[23] After listing the above errors and heresies professed by Erasmus of Rotterdam, St. Alphonsus concludes his historical account of his life by saying: “We may conclude with Bernini, that he died with the character of an unsound Catholic, but not a heretic, as he submitted his writings to the judgment of the Church.”[24]
Now, what would
the Sedevacantists of our day say about a Pope (or a Cardinal or bishop) who
referred to the Invocation of the Blessed Virgin and the saints idolatry,
mocked indulgences, relics, fasting and confession, and declared it rash to
call the Holy Ghost God, as did Eramus? Would they “discern” that he did not
sufficiently profess the true faith to be a member of the Church? To ask the
question is to answer it. The case of Erasmus only highlights how erroneous is
the Sedevacantists “tribal myth” concerning the “profession of the true faith, which
Derksen has fallen for hook, line and sinker.
Doctor Michel de Bay
One more
example taken from our book is that of Doctor Michel de Bay. The de Bay case is
of particular interest because it involves St. Robert Bellarmine himself. By considering
this historical case, we can see how St. Bellarmine reacted to a highly
educated professor and celebrated theologian of his own day who was publicly professing
false doctrines and even heresy. As we
will see, even though Bellarmine personally “discerned” that de Bay was
professing heresy, he did not consider this to have severed “the
profession of the true Faith,” and cause him to lose his membership in the
Church.
Doctor Michel
de Bay was born in 1513. He completed his university studies at Louvain and was
ordained in 1541. After serving as the principal for Standonk College from 1541
to 1544, he was given the chair of philosophy. He held this position until 1550
when he earned the degree of Doctor of Theology and was appointed President of
the College Adrien. He was also invited to take part in the great Council of
Trent.
In spite of his
learning, he possessed a love of novelty and a disdain for Scholasticism. One
author noted that “a pronounced vice in his character was the ease with which
he called heretics all those who failed to agree with his theological ideas,
which, of course, he considered to be manifestly the only orthodox ones.”
Shortly after being appointed President of the College Adrien, de Bay began to
teach and spread errors and heresies. It got so bad that in 1561, Pope Pius IV,
through Cardinal Granvelle, imposed silence upon him, which de Bay failed to
obey. On October 1, 1567, Pope St. Pius V signed the Bull, Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus, which condemned more than 70 of de Bay’s
propositions, with several being qualified as heretical. The Bull was sent privately to de Bay before being
published. What was his response? Michel
de Bay refused to retract his doctrinal
errors, and instead defended himself. St. Pius V responded by publishing the
condemned propositions, yet he refrained from naming de Bay personally.
It was not
until the papal Bull was sent to the university that de Bay finally submitted
to the condemnations (at least externally) and subscribed with the other
professors. However, when the Bull was later made public, he again defended
himself and his errors (even though they had been formally condemned by the Church), by claiming that the doctrines he
held were nothing but that of St. Augustine. He further defended himself by
saying that if some of his teachings were “at variance with the terminology of
the Scholastics, they were yet the genuine sayings of the Fathers.”[25]
It was during
this time that St. Robert Bellarmine arrived at Louvain as a professor of
theology. From 1570 to 1576, Bellarmine publicly opposed the false doctrines of
de Bay in his lectures, but without ever naming him personally. As the
Sedevacantist, John Daly, noted in his article on de Bay, when Bellarmine spoke
of de Bay, “he always considered him as a learned Catholic, most worthy of
respect, and at this time called him ‘prudent, pious, humble, erudite.’”[26]
Yet in spite of this pubic respect
for the person of de Bay, St. Bellarmine continued to hope for a new
condemnation of his errors. The second condemnation would come in the year
1579, after the election of Pope Gregory XIII, in the Bull Provisionis Nostræ.
Around this
time, Bellarmine was replaced at Louvain by Venerable Leonard Lessius. By way
of preparatory information, Bellarmine told Lessius that, in his opinion, the
doctrine of de Bay and his disciples on predestination was heretical. Lessius later wrote to St. Bellarmine, who had been
transferred to Rome, and informed him that de Bay “continued to spread his
errors in private, even after the new condemnation, and sometimes even in public,” and that “his numerous
disciples propagated them with great enthusiasm.”[27]
Bellarmine advised Lessius to continue
to oppose these errors in his lectures, but without ever naming de Bay
personally or condemning the man who was the source of so much evil, and the
precursor of the heresy of Jansenism.
After relating
the history of Michel de Bay and St. Bellarmine (which is entirely consistent
with what we wrote above), John Daly posed the following question:
“Now in the light of this account, one is forced to ask whether some
Sedevacantists in our day are not very much prompter than St. Robert Bellarmine
was in identifying pertinacity, and more animated by the bad example of de Bay
himself than by the good example of St. Robert and of the Ven. Leonard
Lessius.”[28]
Daly concludes
by saying:
“[I]f the Church presumes all who go astray in doctrine to be
pertinacious, St. Robert Bellarmine was clearly not aware of it. And while it
can be possible to recognize someone as a pertinacious heretic even before the
intervention of the Holy See, the fact remains that St. Robert was slower to
draw that conclusion, even after several Roman condemnations, than some are
today when relying only on their own judgment of what seems evident.”[29]
We certainly
applaud Mr. Daly for his honest and true assessment of the Sedevacantist
mindset, but it is a mindset that he also ultimately embraces along with his
Sedevacantist colleagues, who put “their own judgment of what seems evident”
ahead of “the judgment of the Church,” when it is a question of who holds the
papal office.
And to Daly’s
questions, we will add our own: Do Sedevacantists consider Michael de Bay to
have sufficiently “professed the faith” to retain his membership in the Church,
given the fact that he was professing doctrinal errors and heresies that were
formally condemned by the Church? If
not, why? How is de Bay any different
than prelates in our day who profess errors, and perhaps even heresies, yet are
considered by the Church to be members in good standing?
What the de Bay
case and the previous examples show us is that the tribal myth of the Sedevacantists
regarding the “profession of the true faith” is not supported by tradition, or
by the actions of their favorite
saint, Robert Bellarmine. Even though Bellarmine considered the doctrines de
Bay’s professed to be heretical, he
did not declare him a “manifest heretic” as Sedevacantists no doubt would do;
nor did he claim that de Bay had severed the external bond of the “profession
of faith,” and thereby lost his membership in the Church.
Now, maybe we
can understand why Derksen & Company have
never cited a single authority to support their “tribal myth” that an
individual layman in the pew can publicly declare that a man elected Pope by
the Church, and accepted as such by the Church, is a false Pope, simply because
they personally “discern,” by considering his doctrinal teaching, that he does
not sufficiently “profess the faith.” The absurdity of the tribal myth is clear
evidence that today’s Sedevacantists have completely misunderstood what is meant by “the profession of the true Faith” and how the bond is severed. This is yet
another nail in the Sedevacantist coffin.
[2] Needless
to say, Sedevacantists are not members of the Church, since, at a minimum, they
have formally severed their bond of unity with the Pope and the legitimate
hierarchy. Further, those Sedevacantists who have managed to get themselves
ordained as bishops lack ordinary jurisdiction, and therefore are not legitimate
pastors either.
[3] “The Chair is Still
Empty,” http://www.novusordowatch.org/the_chair_is_still_
empty.htm.
Catholisism,”
Second Edition 2008 (Revised and Expanded), disc 4 of 6, track 9.
[5] The Church of
Christ, p. 126.
[6] Ibid.
[7] The Church of
Christ, p. 126.
[11] Pope Francis (September 22, 2015). See Catholic News
Agency’s report at http://www.
catholicnewsagency.com/news/full-transcript-of-popes-in-flight-interview-from-cubato-
us-78637/.
[12] Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, 3rd ed. (Prati: ex
officina libraria Giachetti, 1909), p. 292.
[13] Ibid.
[14] John Daly, Heresy
in History, May, 2000. http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/
heresyhistory.html.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
Duffy,
Wellington Qua, 1847), Chapter XL, p. 291.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Ibid.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Ibid.
