“How often during these past ten years have I not had occasion to respond to questions concerning the weighty problems of the Mass and of the Pope.  In answering them, I have ever been careful to breathe with the spirit of the Church, conforming myself to Her Faith as expressed in Her theological principles, and to her pastoral prudence as expressed in moral theology and in the long experience of Her history.  I think that my views have not changed over the years and that they are happily those of the great majority of priests and faithful attached to the indefectible Tradition of the Church.  It must be clear that the few lines which follow are not an exhaustive study of these problems.  Their purpose rather is to clarify our conclusions to such an extent that no one can be mistaken regarding the official position of the Society of St. Pius X.”

On the occasion of the 25th anniversary of this declaration, I would like to bring to our faithful some tools which will help them to a better understanding of such official position of the Society of St. Pius X, as expressed from the mouth of its venerable founder. Many things happened over these twenty years, and it appears to us that the situation of the Church now is much worse than in 1979.  As the years are passing by, the number of unheard and shocking events seems to be multiplying at a higher speed.  Let me quote only a few of them: the 1986 Inter-religious meeting of Assisi, which was renewed in 2002; the 1999 Catholic-Lutheran document on Justification; the 1993 Balamand agreement, by which the Catholic Church officially renounce to the apostolate of conversion with the members of the Orthodox Church; and more recently, in May 2004, the profanation of the Fatima shrine with a Hindu worship.  Some of us may now wonder if, in view of such shocking events, Archbishop Lefebvre would have kept in 2004 the same position he had in 1979.  

Let us come back to Archbishop Lefebvre own words:

“Let us pass now to a second but no less important subject: does the Church have a true Pope or an impostor on the throne of St. Peter? Happy are those who have lived and died without having to pose such a question! One must indeed recognize that the pontificate of Paul VI poses and continues to pose a serious problem of conscience for the faithful. Without reference to his culpability for the terrible demolition of the Church which took place under his pontificate, one cannot but recognize that he hastened the causes of that decline in every domain. One can fairly ask oneself how it was possible that a successor of Peter can in so little time have caused more damage to the Church than the French Revolution.

Some precise facts, such as the signatures which he gave to Article VII in the Instruction concerning the New Mass and to the Declaration on Religious Liberty are indeed scandalous and have led certain traditionalists to affirm that Paul VI was heretical and thus no longer Pope. They argue further that, chosen by a heretical Pope, the great majority of the cardinals are not cardinals at all and thus lacked the authority to elect another Pope. Pope John Paul I and Pope John Paul II were thus, they say, illegitimately elected. They continue that it is inadmissible to pray for a Pope who is not Pope or to have any "conversations" (like mine of November 1978) with one who has no right to the Chair of Peter.”

1. Exposition of the Sedevacantist thesis: Let me first quote from a Sedevacantist author: “Sedevacantism is the theological position of those traditional Catholics who most certainly believe in the papacy, papal infallibility and the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, and yet do not recognize John Paul II as a legitimate successor of Peter in the primacy. In other words, they do not recognize John Paul II as a true pope. The word Sedevacantism is a compound of two Latin words which together mean “the Chair is vacant.”¹  Sedevacantism appears then to be a theological position or a theory kept by some traditional Catholics who think that the most recent popes, the popes of the Vatican II council, lost their pontifical authority on account of the grave heresies they have been promoting, and the crisis that came along.

1.1.  Theological argument of sedevacantists: It consists of saying that a heretic cannot be head of the Church, but John-Paul II is a heretic, therefore he cannot be a true Pope.  A notorious Sedevacantist, Brother Michael Dimond, O.S.B., from Most Holy Family Monastery, NY, came up with a list of the “202 heresies of Vatican II” and the “101 heresies of John-Paul”.  By the way, Bro. Michael Dimond considers the SSPX, the SSPV, and the CMRI as heretics, because they believe in the baptism of desire, which, according to him, is a denial of the dogma ‘outside of the Church, there is no salvation.’   Bro. Michael Dimond is well known for his extreme statements on a number of topics, up to the point that he is attributing to himself a quasi-magisterial authority by which he thinks that he is able to make infallible statements where he is right, but everybody else is wrong.  Basically, he is acting like a pope.

1.2.  Canonical argument of sedevacantists: It is to consider that the laws of the Church invalidate the election of a heretic; but Cardinal Wojtyla was a heretic at the time of his election, therefore he cannot be a pope.  The Sedevacantists quote the Papal Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio of Pope Paul IV, which says that if anyone was heretic before the Papal election, he could not be a valid pope, even if he is elected unanimously by the cardinals.  They also base their argumentation on the Code of Canon Law², Can. 188, # 4: “Any office becomes vacant ipso facto and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric… #4 publicly defects from the Catholic faith.”

2. Survey of the Theological opinions of a heretical pope:  For that survey, I will follow the study of Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira in his book La Nouvelle Messe de Paul VI: Qu’en penser³.  After explaining how the New Mass departs from the traditional teaching of the Church, this author makes an in-depth study of the theological hypothesis of a heretical pope.  Such study was highly praised by Archbishop Lefebvre, as “the very objective study of Xavier de Silveira”.  To my knowledge, this is the most complete and most clear study on that topic.  Such study was originally published as a series of articles in the magazine Catolicismo, from Brazil, from1969 till 1971.  That publication was under the care of the TFP⁴ (Tradition, Family, Property) movement.  A French translation was eventually published in 1975.  Then, the TFP forbade any other publication or translation of that book.  The fact that LNM made a survey of 136 authors who speak about the possibility of a heretical pope, joined with the fine theological sense of Xavier de Silveira makes his book most highly valuable.

2.1.  Five opinions according St. Robert Bellarmine:

Opinions reported in LNM	Their rank according to St. Robert Bellarmine	Main defenders
1. The pope can never fall into heresy	1st. Opinion according to St. Robert Bellarmine	Pighi, Suarez St. Robert Bellarmine Matthaeucci, Bouix, Billot
2. Theologically one cannot exclude the hypothesis of a heretical pope (see below)
2.1. On account of his heresy, the pope would never lose his pontificate	3rd Opinion according to St. Robert Bellarmine	Bouix
2.2. The heretical pope would lose his pontificate (see below)
2.2.1. The loss of the pontificate would happen the minute the pope falls into an internal heresy, and before it becomes public	2nd Opinion according to St. Robert Bellarmine	Torquemada
2.2.2. He would lose the pontificate when his heresy becomes manifest	5th Opinion according to St. Robert Bellarmine	St. Robert Bellarmine Billot, Cano
2.2.3. He would lose his pontificate only upon a declaration of heresy made by a council, or by cardinals or by group of bishops
(2.2.3.1. Such declaration would act really as a deposition)		(Such opinion is condemned by the Church as heretical)
2.2.3.2. Such declaration would not be a deposition but a merely act to report the loss of the pontificate by a heretic	4th Opinion according to St. Robert Bellarmine	Cajetan, Suarez

2.2.  Value of St. Robert Bellarmine’s opinions:

1^st Opinion: “God would never allow a pope to fall into heresy” The defenders of such opinion argue that Our Lord would never allow a pope to fall into heresy.  For Cardinal Billot, the hypothetical possibility of a pope falling into heresy would never come to reality, according to the promise of Our Lord: “And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” (Luke XXII, 31-32).  For Billot, this promise should apply not only to St. Peter, but also to all his successors, as it was always understood by Tradition.  Against that opinion, we have the case of Pope Honorius (625-638), who was condemned in 680, by the 3^rd Council of Constantinople on account of his letters to Patriarch Sergius, which favoured the Monothelite heresy⁵.  Let me quote from that Council:

“Having found that (Honorius’ letters) are in complete disagreement with the apostolic dogmas and the definitions of the holy councils, and of all the approved Fathers; and that, on the contrary, they lead to the false doctrines of the heretics, we absolutely reject and condemn them as being poisonous to the souls… We also state that Honorius, formerly pope of the elder Rome, had been also rejected from the God’s Holy Catholic Church and is being anathemized, on account of the writings he sent to Sergius, where he adopted his ideas in everything, and reaffirmed his impious principles.”

Let us note that such condemnation happened 42 years after the death of Honorius.  Also, no matter what kind of judgement can be passed on Pope Honorius, it is a matter of fact that we have an official pontifical document which admits that a pope could possibly fall into heresy.  Such document is from Pope Adrian II, more than 200 years after the death of Honorius:

“After his death, Honorius was anathemized by the Eastern Church; but we should not forget that he was accused of heresy, the only crime that would make lawful the resistance of inferiors to the orders of their superiors, and the refusal of their malicious doctrines.”

 As we see, St. Robert Bellarmine’s 1^st Opinion has reasons in favour and against it.  Thus we can say that this 1^st opinion is only probable.

2^nd Opinion: “As he falls into heresy, even only internal, the Pope would ipso facto lose his pontificate”.  Such opinion is now abandoned by theologians.  Because the Church is Visible, it is necessary that its government be visible, and not depends on internal acts.

3^rd Opinion: “Even if he falls into notorious heresy, the pope will never lose his pontificate.” Xavier de Silveira comments: “among the 136 authors we have consulted (for the book LNM), Bouix is the only one to defend such opinion” ⁶We could say like St. Robert Bellarmine that such opinion is very improbable, because it goes against the unanimous consent of the Tradition of the Church.

4^th Opinion: “The heretical pope would lose effectively his pontificate only upon an official declaration of heresy.”  It is clear that such declaration cannot be judicial one, for the pope doesn’t have any superior on earth, capable to judge him.  It would be only a non-judicial act by which Jesus-Christ would Himself dismiss the pope.  Even though such opinion is defended by serious theologians, like Cajetan and Suarez, it is not admitted by St. Robert Bellarmine.  I can see two dangers that can rise from such opinion - to fall into the heresy of Conciliarism, which was condemned by the Church - or at least, to fall into subjectivism.  What can tell us, for sure, that a declaration of heresy coming from a group of bishops is not an attempt to make an act of deposition?

5^th Opinion: “If he was to fall into a manifest heresy, the pope would ipso facto lose his pontificate." Some authors say that the pope would lose his pontificate ipso facto at the very moment when his heresy becomes external; some others maintain that the heretical pope would lose his pontificate only when his heresy becomes notorious and publicly spread. Among the 5 opinions studied by St. Robert Bellarmine, this 5th opinion appears to be the most probable.

3.  The heretical pope:

3.1.   Can a pope be heretic? It has been taught by various popes that a pope can teach heresy against the Faith. Pope Adrian VI († 1523) stated that:  

“If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith.  He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal.  In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics.  The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334).”

Venerable Pope Pius IX († 1878) recognised the danger that a future pope would be a heretic and “teach […] contrary to the Catholic Faith", and he instructed, "do not follow him".  He said: "If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him." (Letter to Bishop Brizen).

3.2.  Incompatibility between heresy and ecclesiastical jurisdiction: Both Holy Scripture and Tradition teach clearly that there is a deep incompatibility in radice (in the root) between the condition of a heretic and the possession of an ecclesiastical jurisdiction, because a heretic ceases to be member of the Church.  However, such incompatibility is not absolute, that is why theologians are using the term in radice (in the root).  In the same manner as a plant can still stay green for a while after it had been rooted up, likewise, jurisdiction could be maintained, in a precarious manner though, even after the Churchman had fallen into heresy (cf. Suarez). Theologians are basing their argumentation mostly on Canon Law, Can. 2314:

“All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic and schismatic incur the excommunication ipso facto.  Unless they respect warnings, they are deprived of benefice, dignity, pension office … and if clerics, with the warning being repeated, they are deposed.” 

Then, Can. 2264 declares unlawful, but not automatically invalid, the acts of jurisdiction coming from someone who has been excommunicated:

“An act of jurisdiction carried out by an excommunicated person, whether in the internal or the external forum, is illicit; and if a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been pronounced, it is also invalid, without prejudice to c. 2261, §3; otherwise it is valid.” 

Thus the heretical cleric does not lose automatically his functions, but he has to be deposed by the lawful authority.  From this, we can conclude that heresy, even external, does not automatically eliminate jurisdiction.  Against it, it may be argued from Canon 188 # 4:

“Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric: 4. publicly defects from the Catholic faith.” 

Sedevacantists are using this canon as a weighty proof of their thesis, however, such canon cannot be considered as a final proof that a heretical pope had lost his office.  One has to remember that the pope is always above the dispositions of the positive law, as the one of Can. 188.  Such argument would be final only if it was being proved that the canonical disposition of Can. 188 belongs to the divine-positive law of the Church.  One would have also to prove that this divine-positive law applies properly to the specific case of the pope.  But, it is precisely on that matter that the greatest theologians have been in disagreement for centuries.

3.3.  Jurisdiction of the heretic: Being cut off at the root, the jurisdiction of the heretic does not disappear automatically, but it will remains as much and as long as it is maintained by a superior authority.  This will happen if the pope maintains the jurisdiction of a heretical bishop who has not yet been punished according to Canons 2264 and 2314.  But, what happens if the pope himself falls into heresy?  Who has the power to maintain him in his jurisdiction?  It is not the Church, or even a group of bishops, for the pope is always superior to the Church, and he is not bound by ecclesiastical law.  According to LNM⁷, Christ Himself could maintain, at least for a while, the jurisdiction of a heretical pope.  What would be the reason that would justify maintaining the jurisdiction of a heretical pope?  Theologians have considered different answers to that question.  The most serious answer to that key question is to say that Christ would maintain the jurisdiction of a heretical pope as long as his heresy is not notorious enough and widely publicised.  Meanwhile, all the acts of jurisdiction of such a heretical pope would be valid and, if he was to proclaim a dogmatic definition, such definition would likewise be valid.  In such case, the Holy Ghost would speak through the mouth of that pope, like He spoke through the mouth of Balaam’s ass (Numbers XXII, 28-30).  Such conclusion of Xavier de Silveira is perfectly consistent with the thought of St. Robert Bellarmine.  The famous Dominican Father Garrigou-Lagrange⁸ reaches the same conclusion.  Basing his reasoning on Billuart, he explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that a heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. For, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head.  The reason is that, whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul, a moral head, as is the Roman Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.

In short, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, but he is head of the visible Church by the jurisdiction and authority which he received, and these can co­exist with his own heresy.

3.4.  Public and Notorious heresy:  It is to be understood according to the Canon Law principles.  A Public crime, according to the law of the Church is not necessarily something which is done in the open and witnessed by Television cameras, as most people think.  Let me quote the famous canonist Bouscaren:

“Classification as to Publicity. A crime is: 1. Public, if it is already commonly known or the circumstances are such as to lead to the conclusion that it can and will easily become so; [...] ‘Commonly known’ (divulgatum) means known to the greater part of the inhabitants of a place or the members of a community; but this is not to be taken mathematically, but in prudent moral estimation. A crime may remain occult though known to a number of persons who are likely to keep it quiet, whereas it may be public though known to only a few who are sure to divulge it.” ⁹

As the pope is the Universal pastor of the entire Church, how can we apply such principles to the case of his heresy?  According to the canonists, for an act of heresy by a pope to be Public, the knowledge of it would either have to be either already widely spread amongst the faithful of the universal Church, being known to most of them, or at least such as that it will be in practice impossible to stop it from becoming so known and it certainly will.  Such heresy would have to be widely publicised, as well as Notorious – in order to be Public in canonical terms.  For a pope’s heresy to be Notorious, not only would the heretical act have to be widely known of, as we have seen, but it would also have to be an act whose criminality had been legally recognised.  In other words, for the criminality of a pope’s heresy to be legally recognised, such that his heresy would be canonically Notorious, not only would a knowledge of his heresy have to have spread widely through the Church, as we have seen above, but it would also have to have been widely recognised as a morally imputable crime.

1 2 3