CathInfo.com

FIFTH POINT: THE TESTIMONY OF CONTEMPORARY THEOLOGIANS

Suarez, Fellow Jesuit and Contemporary (1548-1614):
"I affirm: If he is a heretic and incorrigible, the Pope ceases to be Pope as soon as a declarative sentence of his crime is pronounced against him by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church (...) In the first place, who should pronounce such a sentence? Some say that it should be the Cardinals; and the Church could undoubtedly assign this faculty to them, above all if it were established with the consent and decision of the Supreme Pontiffs, just as was done for the election. But to this day we do not read anywhere that such a judgment has been confided to them. For this reason, it must be affirmed that of itself it belongs to all the Bishops of the Church. For since they are the ordinary pastors and pillars of the Church, one should consider that such a case concerns them. And since by divine law, there is no greater reason to affirm that the matter involves some Bishops more than others, and since, according to human law, nothing has been established in the matter, it must necessarily be held that the matter should be referred to all of them, and even to a general Council. This is the common opinion of the doctors. One can read Cardinal Albano expounding upon this point at length in De Cardinalibus (q.35, 1584 ed, vol 13, p2)"

John of St Thomas, Contemporary (1589-1644):
"Bellarmine and Suárez therefore think that the Pope, by the very fact that he is a manifest heretic and declared incorrigible, is immediately deposed by Christ the Lord and not by any authority of the Church." If you read Suarez above, for him the declaration comes from the 'legitimate jurisdiction of the Church'. Isn't it only normal? Would St Robert have required less?

A Reply to John Salza and Robert Siscoe IV

By Father Paul Kramer



http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com/2016/08/a-reply-to-john-salza-and-robert-siscoe_26.html




[ . . . ]




The claim of Salza and Siscoe, that I reject "the Common Theological Opinion on the Loss of Office for a Heretical Pope;"is in fact a very cunning lie.

First they quote Billuart who does not speak of a common opinion, but of a more common opinion: “According to the more common opinion, Christ by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquillity 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.”

What they neglect to mention is that Billuart died in 1758, and that opinion is no longer the more common one. With their characteristic truculence, Salza and Siscoe say, 《 "If Fr. Kramer rejects this teaching (and he does), let him produce a citation from a reputable theologian who teaches otherwise – that is, that a heretical pope will lose his office".


Here's the citations:


Dominic Prummer:

“The power of the Roman Pontiff is lost. . . (c) By his perpetual insanity or by formal heresy. And this at least probably. . . . The Authors indeed commonly teach that a pope loses his power through certain and notorious heresy, but whether this case is really possible is rightly doubted.” (Manuale Iuris Canonci. Freiburg im Briesgau: Herder 1927. p. 95)



F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal:

“Finally, there is the fifth opinion – that of Bellarmine himself – which was expressed initially and is rightly defended by Tanner and others as the best proven and the most common. For he who is no longer a member of the body of the Church, i.e. the Church as a visible society, cannot be the head of the Universal Church. But a Pope who fell into public heresy would cease by that very fact to be a member of the Church. Therefore he would also cease by that very fact to be the head of the Church. Indeed, a publicly heretical Pope, who, by the commandment of Christ and the Apostle must even be avoided because of the danger to the Church, must be deprived of his power as almost all admit.” (Ius Canonicuм. Rome: Gregorian 1943. 2:453)


Note that Wernz and Vidal interpret Bellarmine as I do, and as did all other experts in Canon Law. Salza and Siscoe attempt to deceive their readers by twisting Bellarmine's words out of context to make it appear like he's saying the opposite of what he intends.
 

         
A. Vermeersch, I. Creusen: 

“The power of the Roman Pontiff ceases by death, free resignation (which is valid without need for any acceptance, c.221), certain and unquestionably perpetual insanity and notorious heresy. At least according to the more common teaching, the Roman Pontiff as a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any declaratory sentence (for the supreme See is judged by no one), he would automatically fall from a power which he who is no longer a member of the Church is unable to possess.” (Epitome Iuris Canonici. Rome: Dessain 1949. p. 340)



Eduardus F. Regatillo: 

“The Roman Pontiff ceases in office: . . . (4) Through notorious public heresy? Five answers have been given: 1. ‘The pope cannot be a heretic even as a private teacher.’ A pious thought, but essentially unfounded. 2. ‘The pope loses office even through secret heresy.’ False, because a secret heretic can be a member of the Church. 3. ‘The pope does not lose office because of public heresy.’ Objectionable. 4. ‘The pope loses office by a judicial sentence because of public heresy.’ But who would issue the sentence? The See of Peter is judged by no one (Canon 1556). 5. ‘The pope loses office ipso facto because of public heresy.’ This is the more common teaching, because a pope would not be a member of the Church, and hence far less could be its head.” (Institutiones Iuris Canonici. 5th ed. Santander: Sal Terrae, 1956. 1:396)



Matthaeus Conte a Coronata: 

“2. Loss of office of the Roman Pontiff. This can occur in various ways: . . . c) Notorious heresy. Certain authors deny the supposition that the Roman Pontiff can become a heretic. It cannot be proven however that the Roman Pontiff, as a private teacher, cannot become a heretic – if, for example, he would contumaciously deny a previously defined dogma. Such impeccability was never promised by God. Indeed, Pope Innocent III expressly admits such a case is possible. If indeed such a situation would happen, he would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority.” (Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Rome: Marietti 1950. I:3I2, p. 3I6).

As was already quoted, "he is not removed by God unless it is through men, refers to an occult heretic.

You are quite mistaken. That is the reason St Robert gives for this opinion being false. With secret heretics there is precisely nothing for men to judge.