An Even Seven: “I see you still don't understand the position of those you think to be refuting. We are not deposing anyone. We are simply recognizing that those "who teach anything besides the Gospel [are] anathematized". Straight from your St. Bellarmine quote.”
Roman Theo: You are not simply recognizing that those who teach another Gospel are to be anathema (which is a statement to be believed, not a fact to be recognized), you are instead judging that a pope has lost his office for heresy and declaring it to be so.
Furthermore, the teaching of St. Paul does not support your position, for he says if one preaches another Gospel he is to be anathema – “let him be anathema” (anathema means excommunication). What he means is such a person is to be excommunicated by the Church. Not that he has already been excommunicated or lost his office.
Commenting on this teaching of St. Paul, Cardinal Tommaso de Vio wrote, “anyone, even an angel of heaven, would be anathematized by God if he preached against the gospel of Christ. This is to proclaim him to be separated from God and worthy of the Church’s excommunication by men. This is confirmed by Saint Thomas … For it is obvious that the divine word establishes that they have to be excommunicated by the Church, not (for this would be to contradict itself) that they had been excommunicated by it.”
The teaching of St. Paul that a heretic is to be anathema (to be excommunicated by the Church) does give you the authority to declare that a pope you believe to be a heretic has lost his office.
An Even Seven: St. Bellarmine also says: "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.” Ipso Facto means by that very fact. By the very fact that they are heretics, they are removed and deprived of all jurisdiction. This is because those who are no longer Catholic, through heresy, cannot preside over Catholics.”
Roman Theo: By the fact that the Church has determined them to be heretics they lose jurisdiction. That is what Bellarmine meant, as can be seen from what he wrote a few paragraphs earlier (quoted already), as well as what Cardinal Tommaso de Vio wrote: “the ipso facto loss of honor and power of jurisdiction is understood to the extent that they are heretics on their part … and are heretics according to the Church’s judgment. This is how we should interpret St. Thomas and others who speak of this.”
An Even Seven: Pope St. Celestine, quoted by St. Robert Bellarmine: "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."
Roman Theo: Two comments.
First, Pope Celestine declared that the excommunications imposed by Nestorius were null and void, in the same way that the excommunication imposed by Pope Liberius against Athanasius was null and void. But that does not mean Nestorius had already been cut off from the Church for heresy and lost his office. Simply because a specific juridical act of a superior is later declared null does not mean the superior lacked authority when he imposed it. This is clear from the fact that the excommunication of Athanasius was later declared null, even though no one disputes that Pope Liberius possess papal authority when he imposed it. Possessing the authority of the office is one thing; the acts of authority - which can be just or unjust, valid or invalid - are another. We will come back to this point in a moment.
Second, the fact that Nestorius was not cut off from the Church and did not lose his office before he was judged to be a heretic by the Church is proven from the facts of the case. A year before Nestorius was finally deposed by the Council of Ephesus, he had already been issued two “formal corrections” by the Patriarch of Alexandria, and had been judged to be a heretic by the Pope at a local council held in Rome. Following the council, Pope Celestine issued a third and final warning to Nestorius, giving him 10 days to renounces his heresy, and declaring that if he did not do so he would be “cast off from the communion of the universal Catholic Church.”
Here is an excerpt from the letter Pope Celestine wsnt to Nestorius after he had been found guilty of heresy.
Letter of Pope Celestine to Nestorius: “Behold now what sentence we are obliged to give you; behold the fruits of your novelties. (…) How does it happen that a bishop preaches to the people words which damage the reverence owed to the Virgin Birth? It is not right, that blasphemous words against God should trouble the purity of the ancient Faith. Was there ever anyone who, adding to or subtracting something from the Faith, was not judged worthy of anathema? For those things which were completely and manifestly handed down to us by the Apostles do not call for addition or subtraction.
“Therefore, although our brother Cyril asserts that he has already addressed you with a second letter, I want you to understand, after his first and second correction, and this of ours, which already amounts to three, that you will have been completely cut off from the whole college and congregation of Christians, unless you quickly correct the things that have been badly said, and unless you return to that Way which Christ testifies Himself to be (Jn 14:6). Know plainly, then, that this is Our sentence: that, unless you preach concerning God our Christ what the Church of Rome, and of Alexandria, and the whole Catholic Church holds—even as the most holy church of the city of Constantinople held perfectly up until you—and, with a clear written profession, given within ten days (which are to be numbered from the day on which you receive notice of this), you repudiate this perfidious novelty, which strives to separate what the venerable Scripture joins; you are cast off from the communion of the universal Catholic Church.”
Even though Nestorius preached blasphemous words that made him “worthy of anathema;” was given two formal warnings by the Patriarch of Alexandria; was judged to be a heretic by the Pope, and then given a third warning by the Pope himself. Nevertheless, he was considered by the pope to have remained in communion with the Church, and given 10 days to renounce his heresy before being “cast off from the communion of the universal Catholic Church.”
Next let’s review the letter from Pope Celestine to the clergy of Constantinople, in which he tells them the excommunications pronounced against them by Nestorius were null. This letter was written after the one quoted above – after he had been judged a heretic by the Pope.
Pope Celestine to the Clergy of Constantinople: “(…) What hope is there for the flock, when its very pastor shows himself to be a wolf, and so invades the sheep that he attacks each of them? … your faith ought to reject his impious disputations with horror, so that, being vigilant in Christ, you may be certain of how to discern what is food and what is poison. Remain constant in the things that you have learned from the mouths of your previous pastors … He (Nestorius) not only fails to treat the wounded, but wounds those who have been given care; he not only fails to lift up those have fallen, but even tries to strike down those who are standing; (…) For these sort are always to be cut off who, troubling the mind of the Christian people, and overturning the Gospels in favor of their own private judgment, cannot bear fruit before God. …. Deservedly, if he persists, he will hear from us the words of Samuel, which he, the priest, once spoke to Saul: 'The Lord will reject you so that you no longer rule over Israel' (1 Kings 15:25).”
Let’s pause here. The Pope tells the faithful to remain constant in what they learned from their previous pastors, and to reject the impious disputations of Nestorius. But he then says only if Nestorius persists (beyond the 10 days he was given) will he be told that he no longer rules over Israel (the Church). This shows that just as the Pope did not yet consider Nestorius to be “cast off” from communion with the Church, neither did he consider him to have lost is office as "ruler" of the New Israel. He continues by addressing the excommunications pronounced by Nestorius:
Celestine: “Whoever among you have been ejected from the church by Nestorius have the example of the blessed and still recent memory of Athanasius, of the church of Alexandria, a most prudent priest. Who does not derive some consolation from considering what he endured? Who cannot take him as a model of fortitude? (…) Hence, no Christian ought to lament it when a temporal exile is [unjustly] inflicted on him, for none of them is an exile from God. (…) Nevertheless, lest his sentence seem to carry weight even for a time … the authority of our See has openly sanctioned that no one, whether a bishop, a cleric, or a Christian of any profession, who has been expelled from his place or excommunicated by Nestorius or his partners, from the time that they began to preach such things, should seem to be expelled or excommunicated; for all of these both were and have remained in Our communion even until now; for he who was wavering by preaching such things was unable to expel or remove anyone.”
All this shows is that the Pope overturned the excommunications imposed by Nestorius – not because Nestorius had already been “cast off” off from communion with the Church and lost his office for heresy, but because the excommunications imposed by him were unjust, and “he who was wavering by preaching such things was unable to expel or remove anyone.”
One last point.
To refute the sedevacantist position that one can sever communion with a pope or bishop whom they personally judge to be a heretic, we will read a portion of a letter of St. Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, to the Pope. In this letter, Cyril refused to sever communion with Nestorius without the Pope's approval, even though Nestorius had persisted in his heresy after two warnings from Cyril.
Cyril to Pope Celestine: “I have written a second letter to him, which contained, in the manner of a brief summary, an exposition of the orthodox faith, exhorting and admonishing him lest he think and speak otherwise. But yet again I accomplished nothing. For even to the present time he still adheres pertinaciously to what he originally devised, nor does he cease to teach perversities. … What, then, shall we do, since we can neither induce him to come back to his senses nor persuade him to abstain from giving such sermons? And the people of Constantinople are corrupted more and more day by day, even though they are not happy with what is going on and await the help of orthodox teachers. (…) But we do not publicly separate ourselves from his communion before indicating these things to your Holiness. Deign, therefore, to declare to us what seems good to You, and tell us whether we should be in communion with him for some time, or whether we can freely declare that no one should be in communion with one who thinks and teaches such things.”
The Patriarch of Alexandria, and future Doctor of the Church, refused to sever communion with Nestorius on his own authority, as great as it was.And what was the response of Pope Celestine? He replied by saying Cyril should remain in communion with the Nestorius for the time being in the hope that he would be converted, and only told Cyril to inform Nestorius that “if he persists” he will be cut off from the Church.
That’s the history of the case of Nestorius. None of it supports your claim that heresy causes the ipso facto loss of office before the heretic is judged by the Church, or that we must separate ourselves from a pope or bishops that we personally judge to be a heretic. On the contrary, the case of Nestorius demolishes the sedevacantist position and directly contradicts both of these sedevacantist errors.
Topic: Crux of the Pope Problem (Read 8065 times)