I can’t express enough how reading the following text is imperative to understand why “sedevacantist’s” believe their position is correct:



                                                                           On the Roman Pontiff



While it is true that St. Robert Bellarmine thought it impossible that a pope could ever lose the faith and hence the papacy, he considered this opinion not theologically certain. For this reason he proceeded to examine the question of what would happen were a pope to become a heretic. The following extract from his treatise on the papacy deals with this question. It should be noted that in the spirit of Christian humility we ought not to go against the mind of any Doctor of the Universal Church without very grave reasons (if ever). Hence it is preferable to hold that the manifest heretics John Paul II and Paul VI were never popes at all, being non-Catholics from before their "election" and thus not valid matter for the papacy to begin with. Please note that this translation was done by Mr. Jim Larrabee, who also provided the comments at the end.

"The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom (de auctor. papae et con., cap. 20 et 21) 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 and from reason that the manifest heretic is "ipso facto" deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), 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. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us?

"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.

"To this Cajetan responds (in Apol. pro tract. praedicto cap. 25 et in ipso tract. cap. 22) that the heretic is not a Christian "simpliciter" [i.e. without qualification, or absolutely], but is one "secundum quid" [i.e. in a qualified or relative sense]. For, granted that two things constitute the Christian - the faith and the [baptismal] character - the heretic, having lost the faith, is still in some way united to the Church and is capable of jurisdiction; therefore, he is also Pope, but ought to be removed, since he is disposed, with ultimate disposition, to cease to be Pope: as the man who is still not dead but is "in extremis" [at the point of death].

"Against this: in the first place, if the heretic remained, "in actu" [actually], united to the Church in virtue of the character, he would never be able to be cut or separated from her "in actu", for the character is indelible. But there is no one who denies that some people may be separated "in actu" from the Church. Therefore, the character does not make the heretic be "in actu" in the Church, but is only a sign that he was in the Church and that he must return to her. Analogously, when a sheep wanders lost in the mountains, the mark impressed on it does not make it be in the fold, but indicates from which fold it had fled and to which fold it ought to be brought back. This truth has a confirmation in St. Thomas who says (Summ. Theol. III, q. 8, a. 3) that those who do not have the faith are not united "in actu" to Christ, but only potentially - and St. Thomas here refers to the internal union, and not to the external which is produced by the confession of faith and visible signs. Therefore, as the character is something internal, and not external, according to St. Thomas the character alone does not unite a man, "in actu," to Christ.

"Further against the argument of Cajetan: either faith is a disposition necessary "simpliciter" for someone to be Pope, or it is only necessary for someone to be a good Pope ["ad bene esse," to exist well, to be good, as opposed to simply existing]. In the first hypothesis, in case this disposition be eliminated by the contrary disposition, which is heresy, the Pope immediately ceases to be Pope: for the form cannot maintain itself without the necessary dispositions. In the second hypothesis, the Pope cannot be deposed by reason of heresy, for otherwise he would also have to be deposed for ignorance, immorality, and other similar causes, which impede the knowledge, the morality, and the other dispositions necessary for him to be a good Pope ("ad bene esse papae"). In addition to this, Cajetan recognises (tract. praed., ca. 26) that the Pope cannot be deposed for the lack of dispositions necessary, not "simpliciter", but only "ad bene esse."

"To this, Cajetan responds that faith is a disposition necessary "simpliciter", but partial, and not total; and that, therefore, even if his faith disappears he can still continue being Pope, by reason of the other part of the disposition, the character, which still endures.

"Against this argument: either the total disposition, constituted by the character and by faith, is necessary "simpliciter," or it is not, the partial disposition then being sufficient. In the first hypothesis, the faith disappearing there no longer remains the disposition "simpliciter" necessary, for the disposition "simpliciter" necessary was the total, and the total no longer exists. In the second hypothesis, the faith is only necessary "ad bene esse", and therefore its absence does not justify the deposition of the Pope. In addition to this, what finds itself in the ultimate disposition to death, immediately thereafter ceases to exist, without the intervention of any other external force, as is obvious; therefore, also the Pope heretic ceases to be Pope by himself, without any deposition.

"Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are "ipso facto" deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: 'We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right'; and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that the heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same.

"Pope St. Celestine I (epist. ad Jo. Antioch., which appears in Conc. Ephes., tom. I, cap. 19) wrote: 'It is evident that he [who has been excommunicated by Nestorius] has remained and remains in communion with us, and that we do not consider destituted [i.e. deprived of office, by judgment of Nestorius], anyone who has been excommunicated or deprived of his charge, either episcopal or clerical, by Bishop Nestorius or by the others who followed him, after they commenced preaching heresy. For he who had already shown himself as deserving to be excommunicated, could not excommunicate anyone by his sentence.'

"And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople, Pope St. Celestine I says: 'The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.'

"St. Nicholas I (epist. ad Michael) repeats and confirms the same. Finally, St. Thomas also teaches (S. Theol., II-II, q. 39, a. 3) that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and that anything they try to do on the basis of any jurisdiction will be null.

"There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.

"Besides that, the second affirmation of Cajetan, that the Pope heretic can be truly and authoritatively deposed by the Church, is no less false than the first. For if the Church deposes the Pope against his will it is certainly above the Pope; however, Cajetan himself defends, in the same treatise, the contrary of this. Cajetan responds that the Church, in deposing the Pope, does not have authority over the Pope, but only over the link that unites the person to the pontificate. In the same way that the Church in uniting the pontificate to such a person, is not, because of this, above the Pontiff, so also the Church can separate the pontificate from such a person in case of heresy, without saying that it is above the Pope.

"But contrary to this it must be observed in the first place that, from the fact that the Pope deposes bishops, it is deduced that the Pope is above all the bishops, though the Pope on deposing a bishop does not destroy the episcopal jurisdiction, but only separates it from that person. In the second place, to depose anyone from the pontificate against the will of the deposed, is without doubt punishing him; however, to punish is proper to a superior or to a judge. In the third place, given that according to Cajetan and the other Thomists, in reality the whole and the parts taken as a whole are the same thing, he who has authority over the parts taken as a whole, being able to separate them one from another, has also authority over the whole itself which is constituted by those parts.

"The example of the electors, who have the power to designate a certain person for the pontificate, without however having power over the Pope, given by Cajetan, is also destitute of value. For when something is being made, the action is exercised over the matter of the future thing, and not over the composite, which does not yet exist, but when a thing is destroyed, the action is exercised over the composite, as becomes patent on consideration of the things of nature. Therefore, on creating the Pontiff, the Cardinals do not exercise their authority over the Pontiff for he does not yet exist, but over the matter, that is, over the person who by the election becomes disposed to receive the pontificate from God. But if they deposed the Pontiff, they would necessarily exercise authority over the composite, that is, over the person endowed with the pontifical power, that is, over the Pontiff.

"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is 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. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: 'He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.'

According to what St. Cyprian affirms in this passage, even had Novatian been the true and legitimate Pope, he would have automatically fallen from the pontificate, if he separated himself from the Church.

"This is the opinion of great recent doctors, as John Driedo (lib. 4 de Script. et dogmat. Eccles., cap. 2, par. 2, sent. 2), who teaches that only they separate themselves from the Church who are expelled, like the excommunicated, and those who depart by themselves from her or oppose her, as heretics and schismatics. And in his seventh affirmation, he maintains that in those who turn away from the Church, there remains absolutely no spiritual power over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano says the same (lib. 4 de loc., cap. 2), teaching that heretics are neither parts nor members of the Church, and that it cannot even be conceived that anyone could be head and Pope, without being member and part (cap. ult. ad argument. 12). And he teaches in the same place, in plain words, that occult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members, and that therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope. This is also the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book I De Ecclesia.

"The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics [i.e. who are not heretics] are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved."

Who wrote this?  Do you have a link?  It's not a straight extract from St. Robert, as it contains an introductory paragraph.

While, generally speaking, one should go with the opinion of a Doctor of the Church, Catholics are not strictly obliged to do so.

But, to me the question is a side issue from the main problem of whether it's possible for the Magisterium of the Church and the Church's Mass to become corrupt, displeasing to God, and harmful to souls.

If one affirms (as Archbishop Lefebvre did) that this is impossible, then the explanation for what happened here is up for debate.

I myself hold to the Siri ("sedeimpeditist") theory.

I believe it comes from the St Bellarmine forum (which seems to be defunct now), so I suspect Mr. John Lane.

As for the bolded, true.  However, I believe when he was canonized and named Doctor of the Church, he was specifically lauded for his writings on the papacy.

Who wrote this?  Do you have a link?  It's not a straight extract from St. Robert, as it contains an introductory paragraph.

While, generally speaking, one should go with the opinion of a Doctor of the Church, Catholics are not strictly obliged to do so.

But, to me the question is a side issue from the main problem of whether it's possible for the Magisterium of the Church and the Church's Mass to become corrupt, displeasing to God, and harmful to souls.

If one affirms (as Archbishop Lefebvre did) that this is impossible, then the explanation for what happened here is up for debate.

I myself hold to the Siri ("sedeimpeditist") theory.

Can you explain this theory and why you hold it?

Here is the forward as written by Bishop Williamson for Fr. Chazals' book, Contra Cekadam:

"Fr. Anthony Cekada...argues as though sedevacantism (the See-vacant doctrine that the Popes since Vatican II have not been Popes at all) is not merely one opinion in a diffiuclt and highly disputed question. He presents it as a dogmatic certainty, to refuse which means that one is not Catholic. Fr. Chazal has a measure of sympathy for sedevacantists (he prefers them to liberals) and he shows charity towards Fr. Cekada, but the great merit of Contra Cekadam is that he proves to any reasonable reader that, at the very least, no Catholic is obliged to accept the sedevacantist position. Fr. Cekada writes as though he were a master of theology and Canon Law, but Fr. Chazal has looked up the theologians and the canons in question and he proves that they are far from proving that the See of Rome has been vacant at any time since Vatican II."

"To do this Fr. Chazal goes in turn through the Church's theologians, canonists and Popes, St. Thomas Aquinas, Scripture and history with a final resort to common sense. Let us here evoke briefly the theologians and canonists on whom sedevacantists rely heavily."

"Their favorite theologian is St. Robert Bellarmine who held that any Pope becoming a heretic ceases to be Pope. But Fr. Chazal opens the books and finds that this opinion is by no meansthe common opinion by the Church theologians, and that Bellarmine himself requires that the Pope concerned be first given two warnings before he is deposed. For indeed, as many other famous theologians argue, the Pope is not just an individual who can lose the faith personally, but he is also the head of a worldwide society which cannot function without a head. Nor does the personal loss of faith necessarily impede his headship of the Church. Therefore they argue, for the sake of the Church as a whole, God preserves the Pope's headship until the highest competent Church authroities can make a public declaration of his heresy (to prevent chaos in the Church), and then and only then does God depose him. No such declaration has been made since Vatican II."

"Sedevacantists love Canon 188.4 which states that public defection from the faith on the part of a cleric means automatic loss of office. But many other Canons and and other sections of Canon 188 clearly show that this "public defection" must include the cleric's intent to resign by such acts as, for instance, attempting marriage or joining a sect, and also there must be a warning and official monitions before the cleric loses his office. Common justice calls it the right of self-defense."

"In fact Fr. Chazal presents a multitude of arguments which prove the human wisdom and patience of Mother Church in dealing with faulty ministers. For the sake of the Church as a whole, it is not only the Pope who does not have his head immediately cut off, as sedevacantists seem to think. The wheels of God may grind exceedingly small but they also grind slowly, as the proverb says."

"If anybody wishes to learn just how little the position of the sedevacantists is binding on Catholics, by all means let them read this brief and entertaining study by Fr. Chazal."

+Bishop Williamson

It sounds so convincing until one actually reads the book.  "He looks to history..."  History shows us that the Catholic Church has operated for extended periods, on several different occasions, with no visible head.

And nowhere does Fr. Chazal tackle the Indefectibility of the Church - one of Fr. Cekada's main points. 

Did the OP discuss indefectability? I mean, did Bellarmines study that was posted in the OP address this? Does Bellarmine write about extended periods of Church history without a Pope?

Here is the forward as written by Bishop Williamson for Fr. Chazals' book, Contra Cekadam:

"Fr. Anthony Cekada...argues as though sedevacantism (the See-vacant doctrine that the Popes since Vatican II have not been Popes at all) is not merely one opinion in a diffiuclt and highly disputed question. He presents it as a dogmatic certainty, to refuse which means that one is not Catholic. Fr. Chazal has a measure of sympathy for sedevacantists (he prefers them to liberals) and he shows charity towards Fr. Cekada, but the great merit of Contra Cekadam is that he proves to any reasonable reader that, at the very least, no Catholic is obliged to accept the sedevacantist position."

I've never disputed that one is not obliged to adopt the sedevacantist position.  What I argue, however, is that one cannot accept the proposition that the Church's Magisterium and Public Worship have been corrupted as a result of the free exercise of legitimate papal authority.  So, for instance, my personal explanation through 1989 is that Cardinal Siri was Pope Gregory XVII, not that the see was vacant.  After that, who knows?  Perhaps with Ratzinger and Bergoglio they could never fully assume papal authority because they weren't bishops.

I don't have any issues with Father Chazal's position.  Nor do I have any issues with that of Archbishop Lefebvre, who affirmed the principle that the Holy Ghost protects the papacy from perpetrating such destruction, but that he doesn't have the certainty to explain in detail how it happened.  That's actual a posture from intellectual humility.  Is it because these men have been heretics?  Is it because of the Siri situation?  Was Paul VI (and were others) blackmailed?  At the end of the day, I'm not hung up with the WHOs, WHYs, and HOWs ... though I have my own pet theory ... and my only beef is with allegations that the Magisterium can become corrupt and lead souls to Hell, that a legitimate Pope could promulgate a Rite of Public Worship whereby the Bride of Christ, the Church, displeases Her Divine Spouse.

Here is the forward as written by Bishop Williamson for Fr. Chazals' book, Contra Cekadam:

"Sedevacantists love Canon 188.4 which states that public defection from the faith on the part of a cleric means automatic loss of office. But many other Canons and and other sections of Canon 188 clearly show that this "public defection" must include the cleric's intent to resign by such acts as, for instance, attempting marriage or joining a sect, and also there must be a warning and official monitions before the cleric loses his office. Common justice calls it the right of self-defense."

+Bishop Williamson

"The argument is founded on the false premise that loss of ecclesiastical office due to heresy takes place because heresy is a crime against the unity of the Church; and because it is a crime, it falls under the jurisdiction of the Church; and therefore loss of office cannot occur before the heretic has been juridically judged by the Church. For this reason, they argue, the heretic does not lose office without a public judgment pronounced by Church authority. Loss of ecclesiastical office, according to their argument, is a penalty inflicted by the authority of the Church for the crime of heresy.....I provide the verbatim texts of the most authoritative commentaries on Canon Law which explain that loss of office for heresy is not a penalty for a crime; but on the contrary, the fact of public defection into heresy brings about the automatic loss of office without any regard to any prescriptions of penal law; and therefore, without warnings; without any declaration by ecclesiastical authority, and without any intent on the part of the heretic to resign his office. The reason why this is so is that heresy in its very nature is a sin opposed to faith, and therefore against the bond of the unity of the Church in the one Catholic faith; which therefore, if the sin is public, as a necessary consequence and by its very nature, visibly severs one from the body of the Church and directly brings about the loss of ecclesiastical office. St. Robert Bellarmine explains and demonstrates that it is unanimously taught by the Fathers that heretics lose all jurisdiction entirely by themselves, ipso facto, and not by the force of any human law, but ex natura hæresis. Thus, the fall from office takes place independently of the jurisdiction of the Church; and, as Suárez proves, papal loss of office cannot take place by the force of any human law. Therefore, the administrative laws of the Church merely recognize the nature of the ipso facto loss of office as being ex natura hæresis, and accordingly statutes that such a loss of office takes place ipso jure."

Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.

It sounds so convincing until one actually reads the book.  "He looks to history..."  History shows us that the Catholic Church has operated for extended periods, on several different occasions, with no visible head.

And nowhere does Fr. Chazal tackle the Indefectibility of the Church - one of Fr. Cekada's main points. 

Extended periods?  Longest I could find was 3 years (and that was an extended conclave to elect a new pope, unlike the permanent “interregnum” of today, which has had no conclave for the last 65 years).