Robert
Siscoe and John of St. Thomas Respond to Fr. Cekada
(Published in Catholic Family News)
By Robert J. Siscoe
Fr. Cekada posted a response on his website to my April, 2014 article,
titled Bellarmineand Suarez on the Question of a Heretical Pope. (1) Skipping over the
citations included in the article, which confirmed that the intervention of the
proper ecclesiastical authorities is necessary for a sitting Pope to be
declared deprived of his office due to heresy, Fr. Cekada zeroed in on one point
in particular - namely, my assertion that, according to Bellarmine, a Pope
becomes a “manifest heretic” by remaining obstinate after being publicly
warned.
Now, if my assertion is correct, it reveals a fundamental flaw in one of the
principle arguments (if not the principle argument) used in
defense of the Sedevacantist position, which could result in an unraveling of
the entire Sedevacantist thesis. Fr. Cekada, being well aware of this, reacted
at once by posting an article of his own on his website in an attempt to
counter my assertion. Fr. Cekada’s attempted refutation included two points: 1)
He claims that Bellarmine never said a pope must be warned before losing his
office due to manifest heresy. 2) He also argued that two quotations (one from
Bellarmins’s fourth opinion and another from
Bellarmine’s fifth opinion) which were included together in the
article (separated by an ellipses) were referring to “two different issues”. As
we will see later, these two quotations do not refer to two different issues,
but are logically connected one to another.
I contacted Fr. Cekada directly to ask if he would allow me to respond to his
public allegation (which, I’m sorry to say, was replete with sarcastic insults
and name-calling), and if he would be willing to include my response beneath
his own article on his website. He replied cordially by saying that his website
is just not set up for that sort of thing; and moreover, if he permitted me
to respond to his public accusations and ridicule, he’d have to do the same for others.
Heaven forbid! But to his credit, he did edit the original piece by removing
most of the sarcastic insults and inappropriate name-calling, thereby bringing
his article slightly more in accord with what one would expected from a person
who had been elevated to the dignity of the priesthood.
As Providence would have it, after reading Fr. Cekada’s piece, and while
looking up the source for a quotation I had used in the April article, I
happened across an extremely thorough treatise on the deposition of a heretical
pope, which, as far as I know, has never been translated into English (at least
not in its entirety). I discovered it in Cursus
Theologici, Tract. De Auctoritate
Summi Pontificis, Disp II, Art III (1640), written by John of
St. Thomas, who is considered one of the greatest minds of the
“Counter-Reformation” era, as it is sometimes called. This brilliant professor
of Scholastic theology and philosophy, who is recognized as one of the foremost
Thomists the Church has known - possibly second only to St. Thomas himself -
addresses every aspect of the question with incredible precision, utilizing
Thomistic metaphysics and unassailable logic, while citing historical examples
and canon law. Through the use of distinctions, he reconciles apparent
contradictions in the writings of theologians over this question, and
explains, in precise detail, the way in which a heretical pope
falls from the Pontificate.
His treatise reveals many errors of today’s Sedevacantists, using some of the
same arguments that have appeared in this publication. He even discusses, at
length, and confirms the very point I made in the April 2014 article - which
Fr. Cekada mocked an ridiculed as “windbaggery from someone who has no idea
what he is talking about” – namely, that Bellarmine held the position that a
heretical Pope must be warned before losing his office due to heresy.
I will use this response to Fr. Cekada to introduce some of the material
contained in this magnificent treatise, which will likely be published, in its
entirety, in an upcoming book on Sedevacantism, which should be out in the
Spring of 2015.
John of St. Thomas lists the sequence of events for the loss of office for a
heretical Pope as follows:
1) A Pope who professes heresy is, in accord with divine law, publicly
warned by the proper authorities.
2) If the Pope shows himself manifestly obstinate after being duly warned, a
declaratory sentence is issued for the crime of heresy, and
the faithful are informed that, according to divine law (Titus 3:10), he must
be avoided.
3) Since a Pope cannot govern the Church if he must be avoided
by the faithful, God Himself severs the bond that unites the man to the office,
and he falls, ipso facto, from the Pontificate, even “before any
excommunication or judicial sentence”, by the Church, as Bellarmine himself
taught.
4) A General Council issues a second declaration (declaration of deprivation)
stating that the Pope has deprived himself of his office. At this
point the former pope is judged and punished by the Church.
Notice that the declaratory sentence (#2) and the declaration
deprivation (#4) are two separate and distinct events. This is an
important point, since it clarifies something that Sedevacantists, such as Fr.
Cekada, have missed. All they have considered, regarding this point, is the
two-fold opinion regarding how a heretical pope loses his office: one opinion
maintains that the Church deposes the pope; the other holds that he loses his
office ipso facto, and the Church merely confirms what has already
taken place (thereby avoiding the heresy of Conciliarism, which claims that the
Church has authority over a pope). But both of these opinions only pertain to
the final declaration. What the Sedevacantists have failed to grasp is that
before we get to the declaration of deprivation (point #4), both opinion agree
that the Church must establish that the Pope has fallen into heresy.
This point was explained by the canonist S.B. Smith. In his classic work, Elements
of Ecclesiastical Law (1881), we find the following:
“Question: Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of
the Pontificate?
"Answer: There are two opinions: one holds that he is by virtue of divine
appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other,
that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions
agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church -
i.e., by an ecumenical council or the College of Cardinals.” (2)
Notice that Fr. Smith addresses both opinions regarding the question of how a
pope loses his office (which relates to point #4 above), and then notes that
“both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the
Church.” (point #2).
And it should be noted that Fr. Smith’s book was carefully examined by two
canonists in Rome following its initial publication. The Preface of the Third
Edition explains that Cardinal Simeoni, Prefect of the Propaganda Fide,
“appointed two Consultors, doctors in canon law, to examine the ‘Elements’ and
report to him. The Consultors, after examining the book for several months,
made each a lengthy report to the Cardinal-Prefect”. (3) Their detailed reports
noted five inaccuracies or errors that required revision. The above quotation
was not cited as an error, or even a slight inaccuracy. Hence it remained in
the Third revised Edition from which the above quotation was taken. If the
statement was in incorrect, it would have been noted by the canonist and
revised. The fact that it was not revised shows that the statement is correct.
It only makes sense that a Pope would not lose his office without the Church
performing the ministerial function necessary to establish the crime, since if
a pope were to lose his office without the Church knowing about, or in any way
being involved in the process, Catholics would never have absolute certainty
that a pope who defined a dogma, or ratified a council, was a true pope, or an
antipope, since they would never have absolute certainty that he had not
previously fallen into heresy and thereby lost his office. Everything would be
in a state of uncertainty and left to the private judgment of each individual
to decide. The scrupulous would be paralyzed by doubt, and the instable would
fall into the most outrageous conclusions.
And we can see where it leads when individual Catholics in the pew begin to
decide for themselves who is, and who is not, a true Pope, when we consider
that we now have a Sedevacantist author who claims that all the popes since
Innocent (d. 1143) have been anti-popes. The following was recently posted on
his website:
"As of January 2014, I have discovered conclusive evidence that all the
so-called popes and cardinals from Innocent II (1130-1143) onward have
been idolaters or formal heretics and thus were apostate antipopes and apostate
anticardinals.”
This shows where the Protestant notion of private judgment leads when it is used as the basis for determining who is and who is not a true Pope. For this reason, a pope will not lose his office ipso facto by divine law, without the Church first establishing the fact of the crime.
The
Necessity of a Warning
St. Bellarmine lists five opinions regarding the loss of office for a heretical
Pope. The fourth and fifth opinions refer to
the two opinions discussed above by Fr. Smith – namely, whether a heretical
Pope loses his office ipso facto (fifth opinion), or is jure
divinodeposable (fourth opinion). Bellarmine holds to the more common fifth
opinion regarding this question.
“Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth” wrote Bellarmine, “according to
which the Pope manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in
the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the
Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church.”
But the question dealt with in the April article still remains: what did
Bellarmine himself mean by the term “manifest heretic”? The answer is not given
in Bellarmine’s explanation and defense of the fifth opinion, but
is found in his objection and refutation of the fourth opinion.
In his objection to the fourth opinion, Bellarmine employed the use
of a syllogism (4) in order to arrive at a theological conclusion that refutes
it. A theological conclusion is a conclusion derived from two premises, one of
which is a revealed truth (the Major), while the other is a truth known by
reason (the Minor). The following is the syllogism used by Bellarmine.
Major: According to St. Paul, a heretic must be avoided after two
warnings.
Minor: A Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided (for how could the
Church avoid its head?).
Conclusion: A manifest heretic cannot be the pope.
The following is all contained in a single paragraph in the original:
“The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom the manifestly heretical Pope
is not ipso facto deposed, but can and must be deposed by the
Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first
place, it is proven with arguments from authority [Major] and from reason
[Minor] that the manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed, The
argument from authority is based on Saint Paul (Titus, 3:10), who orders that
the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing
himself to be manifestly obstinate which means before any
excommunication or judicial sentence [Major] (…) .
Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to
avoid our own head? [Minor] … therefore the
manifest heretic cannot be Pope.” [Conclusion]
Now, before showing how this syllogism requires a warning for a pope to be
considered a manifest heretic, I need to address Fr. Cekada’s primary argument
against my April article. He claimed that a single quotation from the article,
which included a statement from Bellarmine’s fourth opinion, along with a
statement from the fifth opinion (the two being separated by an ellipses), were
completely unrelated. He wrote: “You don’t have to be a Latinist to figure out
that two passages with several intervening columns in small print might just
possibly refer to two different issues.” He then used this assertion as the
basis for a sarcastic ad hominem attack, which, unfortunately, is a common
tactic of Fr. Cekada against anyone who dares to write against the errors of
Sedevacantism.
What Fr. Cekada apparently didn’t realize (or pretended not to realize), is that the two quotations included the Major from the syllogism (found in the fourth opinion), along with a statement from the fifth opinion that is virtually identical to the Conclusion of the syllogism. Hence, there is a logical relation between the two citations, which Fr. Cekada claimed not to have seen. The following is how the syllogism reads when the quotation from the fifth opinion replaces the Conclusion from the syllogism in the fourth opinion:
Major: According to St. Paul, a heretic must be avoided after two warnings.
Minor: A Pope who remains Pope
cannot be avoided. But how can we avoid our head?
Conclusion: The Pope manifestly a heretic
ceases by himself to be Pope.
A simple comparison between the above Conclusion (statement
taken from the fifth opinion), and the Conclusion found in the
syllogism in the fourth opinion (“the manifest heretic cannot be
Pope”), shows that the two statements are virtually identical.
Therefore, quoting the Major from the fourth opinion, along with the above
statement from the fifth opinion (as was done in the April article), was not
connecting together “two different issues”, as Fr. Cekada claimed. Rather, the
latter half of the quote is the logical conclusion to the former
when you add the Minor. Did Fr. Cekada really not notice this?
How much more appropriate would it have been for Fr. Cekada to have e-mailed me
directly for a clarification, rather than posting a sarcastic and insulting
article on his website for all the world to see? Is such common courtesy too
much to expect from a priest? The question that remains is whether Fr. Cekada
will be honest enough to remove the public detraction from his website, now
that he has been alerted to his mistake.
Now back to the main the issue: what did Bellarmine mean by the term “manifest
heretic”? Notice that the Major in Bellarmine’s syllogism (the revealed premise
used to establish why a manifestly heretical pope loses his office) requires
a warning, according to the authority of St. Paul. What this shows is that,
according to Bellarmine, a pope is not considered a manifest heretic prior to
being warned. Fr. Cekada denies this and instead claims the only reason
Bellarmine quoted the verse (Titus 3:10) was to show that “heresy is a type of
self-judgement that puts you (and by extension, a heretical pope) outside the
Church.” But, with all due respect, Fr. Cekada is mistaken. That’s not why
Bellarmine cited that particular verse. It was quoted because a warning is
necessary. In fact, this principle of divine law is enshrined
in canon law, which also requires that a warning be given (canon 2314.2)
followed by a declaratory sentence (2223.4).
In fact, a warning is considered so essential that it is even required for a prelate who publicly defects from the Faith (Canon 188.4) by joining a false religion, whether formally (sectae acatholicae nomen dare) or informally (publice adhaerere). Although canon law does not require a declaratory sentence in this instance, it does require a warning before the cleric is degraded. (5) This shows how absolutely essential the Church considers a warning to be to establish pertinacity.
The
Purpose of a Warning
The purpose of the warning is to establish whether or not the person is
pertinacious in his rejection of a dogma, rather than merely mistaken, or
perhaps only guilty of a regrettable statement made out of human weakness.
Since pertinacity is a necessary element of heresy, it does
not suffice that its presence be presumed; it must be confirmed. A warning is a
means for establishing whether a person in material heresy is or is not
pertinacious. If a warning is necessary to establish pertinacity in the case of
a priest or Bishop (according to canon law), why would it be unnecessary in the
case of a Pope? Is the bar set lower for “he who judges all and is judged by no
one,” than for those of a lower rank?
Commenting on the proposition that a pope who is externally a heretic, but who
has not been warned, remains pope, John of St. Thomas wrote:
“This statement… is obvious and is not contradicted by
Bellarmine. The truth is evident for the following reason: the pope insofar as
he is externally a heretic, if he is prepared to be corrected, cannot be
deposed (as we have said above), and the Church, by divine law, cannot
declare him deposed, as it cannot yet avoid him, since,
according to the Apostle [Paul], ‘a man who is a heretic is to be avoided,
after the first and second warning’. Therefore, before the first and
second warning, he is not to be avoided by the Church...Therefore,
it is falsely said that a Pontiff, by the very fact that he is a heretic
externally is deposed: truly, he is able to be so publicly as long as he has
not yet been warned by the Church....”
This teaching of John of St. Thomas is confirmed by the eminent 18th Century
Italian theologian, Fr. Petri Ballerini – who is an adherent of Bellarmine’s
fifth opinion. A portion of the following quote was included in the April
article, but what was not specifically pointed out is that, according to Fr.
Ballerini, before the Pope is warned he is still a legitimate Pope (which will
become more clear in the commentary that follows). He begins by saying that a
Pontiff who “defended heresy” would be a grave danger to the faith. He then
asks who would have the authority to issue a warning to a Pope, and explains
what such a warning would accomplish:
“Is it not true that, confronted with such a danger to the faith, any
subject can, by fraternal correction, warn their superior, resist him to
his face, refute him and, if necessary, summon him and press him to repent? The
Cardinals, who are his counselors, can do this; or the Roman Clergy, or the
Roman Synod, if, being met, they judge this opportune. For any person, even a
private person, the words of Saint Paul to Titus hold: ‘Avoid the
heretic, after a first and second correction, knowing that such a
man is perverted and sins, since he is condemned by his own judgment’ (Tit. 3,
10-11). For the person, who, admonished once or twice, does not repent,
but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or defined
dogma - not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by
any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity - this
person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will
he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such form that
now no declaration or sentence of anyone whatsoever is necessary to cut him
from the body of the Church. (…) Therefore the Pontiff who after such
a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by
the Synod, maintained himself hardened in heresy and openly turned himself away
from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of
Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he
would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all
might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him. Thus, the
sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made
known to all the Church, making clear that by his own will he had turned away
and separated himself from the body of the Church, and that in a certain way he
had abdicated the Pontificate…” (6)
Notice that he begins by explaining that an inferior can warn a superior. The
reason he mentions this is because the Cardinals, or those who are charged with
issuing the public warning, are inferior to the Pope. What this shows is that,
according to Fr. Ballerini, a Pope who “defended heresy” would still be Pope
prior to the public warning – just like John of St. Thomas said – since a
“Pope” who had already lost his office due to heresy would no longer be
superior to the Cardinals. Only after remaining obstinate in
the face of the “public and solemn” warning would pertinacity be sufficiently
manifest. Prior to the public warning, and up to the time of the public
declaration, the man would still be a legitimate Pope. This point becomes more
evident from what Fr. Ballerini had to say next:
“One sees then that in the case of a heresy, to which the Pontiff adhered
privately, there would be an immediate and efficacious remedy… for in this
hypothesis whatever would be done against him before the declaration of his
contumacy and heresy, in order to call him to reason, would constitute an
obligation of charity, not of jurisdiction; and if, after his
turning away from the Church had been made manifest, there was a
sentence passed on him by the Council, such a sentence would be pronounced
against one who was no longer Pope nor superior to the Council.” (7)
And it doesn’t suffice that the warning be given by a private individual. John
of St. Thomas addresses this point directly. In the following quote, he begins
by noting that even Bellarmine maintains that a warning is required, which
is the very point I made in the April article that Fr. Cekada ridiculed.
John of St. Thomas then explains why the warning must come from the proper
authorities, and why a public declaration must follow if the warning goes
unheeded. He begins by saying: “in truth, Bellarmine objects [to the fourth
opinion] by saying the Apostle teaches that a heretic, after two
warnings, must be avoided,” and then added:
“A heretic ought to be avoided after two juridical warnings made by Church
authority, and not according to private judgment. For great
confusion would follow in the Church if it would suffice that this warning
could be made by a private individual...”
“For the pope’s heresy cannot be public to all of the faithful except by an
indictment brought by others. But the indictment of an individual does not
bind, since it is not juridical, and consequently none would be obliged to
accept it and avoid him. Therefore, it is necessary that, just as the Church
designates the man and proposes him to the faithful as being elected Pope, thus
also the Church declares him a heretic and proposes him as one to be avoided.”
The
Effect of the Warning and Declaratory Sentence
John of St. Thomas has some very interesting things to say about the effects of
the warning and declaratory sentence, and how these relate to the loss of
office.
Firstly, as we have seen, the warning serves to determine whether the Pope is
indeed pertinacious. Once pertinacity is manifest, the Church issues a
declaratory sentence of the crime and informs the faithful
that, according to divine law, he is to be avoided. Now, since a person cannot
effectively govern the Church as its head while simultaneously being avoided by
those he is to govern, the Pope is effectively rendered impotent by this
declaration. John of St. Thomas explains it this way:
“The Church is able to declare the crime of a Pontiff and,
according to divine law, propose him to the faithful as a heretic that must be
avoided. The Pontiff, however, by the fact of having to be avoided, is
necessarily rendered impotent by the force of such a declaration, since a Pope
who is to be avoided is unable to influence the Church as its head.”
It should also be noted, as Fr. Wernz S.J. observed, that the declaratory
sentence of the crime “does not have the effect of judging a
heretical pope, but of demonstrating that he has already been judged.” (8) Pope
Innocent III made this same point, which highlights a distinction made by the
canonists between judging the Pope, and declaring him judged.
Commenting on the verse “if the salt lose its savor, it is good for nothing,”
Pope Innocent wrote:
“[T]he Roman Pontiff … should not mistakenly flatter himself about his power,
nor rashly glory in his eminence or honor, for the less he is judged by man,
the more he is judged by God. I say ‘less’ because he can be judged by
men, or rather shown to be judged, if he clearly loses his savor to
heresy, since he ‘who does not believe is already judged’ (John 3:18)…” (9)
John of St. Thomas delves deeper into this point by clarifying that the Church
acts directly on the matter, but only indirectly on the form
(the Pontificate). He describes this point using the analogy of man. He
explains that just as the generative act of man does not produce the form (the
soul), neither does that which corrupts and destroys the matter (disease, etc)
directly touch the form - nor does the corrupting element directly cause the
separation of the form from the matter (but only renders the matter incapable
of sustaining the form) - so too is it with the election and deposition of the
Pope. In both cases the actions of the Church are directed to the matter (the
man) and only indirectly and ministerially to the
form (the Pontificate). In the election, the Church designates the man (matter)
who is to receive the form (Pontificate). In the deposition, the Church
juridically declares the man to be judged and therefore to be avoided, and God
Himself severs the bond that unites the form to the matter, causing the man to
fall from the Pontificate.
Having fallen from the pontificate due to his heresy being manifest and
declared to all, the former pope can then “be judged and punished by the
Church”, as Bellarmine himself said. At this point, a Council would declare the
see vacant (Sede Vacante) so that the Cardinals could proceed to the election
of a new Pope.
Of course, none of this has occurred with the post-conciliar Popes, who, faced
with a public and solemn warning, may very well have renounced their errors and
claimed they never intended teach other than what the Church herself teaches.
Yet Sedevacantists, based on a hasty and superficial reading of Bellarmine,
skip over all this and take matters into their own hands. Imagining that a
manifest heretic is one they personally judge to be a heretic,
they conclude that if they themselves become “morally certain” that the man is
guilty of heresy it must mean he is not the pope. They then write articles
explaining to others how they too can “detect” heresy in the pope in the hope
that they will also become “morally certain” the man is a heretic and adopt the
Sedevacantist position. This is one of their means of proselytism.
The Church is a visible society; who is and who is not a member of the
hierarchy is not a matter of personal opinion. John of St. Thomas addresses
this point directly, when he said a pope who is a manifest heretic, according
to private judgment, remains pope. He wrote:
“So long as he has not been declared to us juridically as an infidel or
heretic, be he ever so manifestly heretical according to private judgment, he
remains, as far as we are concerned, a member of the Church, and consequently
its head. The Church’s judgment is required, whereby he is proposed [to the
faithful] as a non-Christian, and therefore to be avoided. It is only then that
he ceases to be pope as far as we are concerned.”
“Given that, as a private person, the Pontiff could indeed become a public, notorious, and obstinate heretic… only a Council would have the right to declare his see vacant so that the usual electors could safely proceed to an election.” (11)
“We must point out, besides, that the faithful can certainly distinguish a true
prophet from a false one, by the rule that we have laid down, but for all that,
if the pastor is a bishop, they cannot depose him and put another in his place. For
Our Lord and the Apostles only lay down that false prophets are not to
be listened to by the people, and not that they depose them. 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.” (13)
Objection
Answered
At this point an objection needs to be addressed. Fr. Cekada has attempted to
counter a number of articles against Sedevacantism by claiming that these were
referring to the crime of heresy, while, according to him, the
loss of office is caused by the sin of heresy. Here is one
such example:
“Like many who have written against sedevacantism, one fundamental flaw runs
through Mr. Sparks’ article (…) Heresy is both a crime (delictum)
against canon law and a sin(peccatum) against divine law. …
It is by violating the divine law through the sin(peccatum) of
heresy that a heretical pope loses his authority – ‘having become an
unbeliever,’ as Cardinal Billot says, ‘he would by his own will be cast outside
the body of the Church’.” (14)
“Given, therefore, the hypothesis of a pope who would become notoriously
heretical, one must concede without hesitation that he would by that very
fact lose the pontifical power, insofar as, having become an unbeliever, he
would by his own will be cast outside the body of the Church.” (15)
Fr. Cekada’s position is also contradicted by John of St. Thomas who, no less
than twelve times, states that it is the crime of heresy that
causes the Pope to lose his office. Numerous examples have already been cited
in this article. One more will suffice: John of St. Thomas speaks of “the
deposition itself, which must be done after the declarative judgment of
the crime.”
Another authority that contradicts Fr. Cekada is the highly respected
commentary on canon law by Wernz-Vidal. Speaking of the case of a manifestly
heretical pope, Wernz-Vidal says: “the General Council declares the fact
of the crime by which the heretical pope
has separated himself from the Church and deprived himself of his
dignity." (18)
Now Fr. Cekada himself quotes Wernz-Vidal when it supports his position. Is he
also willing to accept its weighty authority when it contradicts his personal
opinion? If so, he will be forced to revise many of his arguments in favor of
Sedevacantism, and address many others than he simply dismissed.
Unfortunately, a number of unsuspecting laymen have fallen for and embraced
this particular teaching of Fr. Cekada, and then used it to defend the
Sedevacantist position. One such person is Jerry Ming, who wrote an “Open
Letter to John Vennari”, in response to an article he ran several years ago in
Catholic Family News. Here is an excerpt from the “Open Letter”. See if it
sounds familiar:
“So, it should be clear to all, that heresy is a crime against canon law and a
sin against the divine law. ‘It is by violating the divine law through
the sin of heresy that a heretical pope loses his authority –
“having become an unbeliever…” as Cardinal Billot says, “he would by his own
will be cast outside the body of the Church”.’” (19)
Conclusion
As we have seen, a juridical warning is an integral part of the process for a
Pope to lose his office due to manifest heresy, since it serves as a means of
establishing pertinacity, which is a necessary element of heresy. Once
pertinacity is established, the Pope’s heresy must be manifest to all by
a declaratory sentence of the crime issued by the proper
authorities. Without this intervention by the proper authorities, a Pope who
appears externally to be a heretic retains his office.
This explains why Fr. Paul Laymann, S.J., (d. 1635), “one of the greatest
moralists and canonists of his time” (20) said that a Pope who fell into
heresy, but was nevertheless being tolerated by the Church, would remain Pope.
“It is more probable that the Supreme Pontiff, as a person, might be able to
fall into heresy and even a notorious one, by reason of which he would
merit to be deposed by the Church, or rather declared to be separated from her.
(…) Observe, however, that, though we affirm that the Supreme Pontiff, as a
private person, might be able to become a heretic and therefore cease to be a
true member of the Church, (…) still, while he was tolerated by the
Church, and publicly recognized as the universal pastor, he would really enjoy
the pontifical power, in such a way that all his decrees would have no
less force and authority than they would if he were truly faithful.” (21)
Billuart explained the same point, when he said "Christ by a particular
providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to
give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such
time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church” (Billuart,
De Fide, Diss. V, A. III No. 3, Obj. 2).
This shows the wisdom of the decree from the Fourth Council of Constantinople,
which forbade anyone to separate himself from communion with his
patriarch before a careful enquiry and judgment in synod, attaching
the grave penalty of excommunication to any laymen or monk who
dared to do otherwise.
“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. (…) If anyone shall be found defying this holy
synod, he is to be debarred from all priestly functions and status if he is a
bishop or cleric; 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” (The Fourth Council of
Constantinople, Canon 10).
The Council decreed what it did for a reason. Fr. Cekada ignores this decree
and attempts to persuade the faithful, who are scandalized by the crisis in the
Church, that they must do precisely what the council punishes with an
excommunication. “There is a way that seemeth right to man, but the end thereof
is death.”
Fr. Cekada may honestly believe that the last 6 or 7 men elected pope, and
recognized as Pope by virtually the entire world (Catholic or not), were, in
fact, not real Popes. In fact, he may be just as certain of that as
he is that the papacy is lost by the sin of heresy. Caveat
Emptor!
