@page { margin: 0.79in } p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; direction: ltr; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; text-align: left; orphans: 2; widows: 2 } a:link { color: #0000ff }
Deposing the Pope?

 
Fr. Curzio Nitoglia

 
[The original Italian article can be found here:
https://doncurzionitoglia.wordpress.com/2019/05/09/deporre-il-papa/#sdfootnote11anc]

 

 
INTRODUCTION

 
In an "Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church", dated May 2019, some lay and ecclesiastical scholars accuse Pope Francis of heresy. (1)

 
Furthermore, the Authors believe that a heretical Papacy cannot be tolerated or ignored with the idea of avoiding in this way a worse evil, even if it were a Schism similar to the Great Schism of the West (XV century), in which there were in the Church at the same time three "Popes" of which two were antipopes. A Papacy like that of Francis must be subjected to correction by the Bishops, [they say].

 
For this reason, the study contained in this "Letter" concludes with the invitation to the Bishops:

• to admonish Pope Francis to retract his heresies,
• and if he obstinately refuses [to do so], to depose him and to appoint another Pope.

 
We will expose the main topics contained in the "Open Letter" in the form of "Objections" and we will try to refute them in the form of "Answers".

 
*

 
OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS

 
Objection n. 1 of the "Open Letter": the Decree of Gratian (dist. XL, can. 6)

 
"The canon that has taken for the first time the possibility of a Pope's heresy explicitly into consideration is to be found in the Decree of Gratian. Canon 6 of the XL distinction of the Decree states that a Pope cannot be judged by anyone, unless it is discovered that he has deviated from the faith".

 
"This canon was included along with the rest of the Decree of Gratian in the Corpus Juris Canonici, which formed the basis of the canon law of the Latin Church until 1917 and whose authority is supported by papal authority, given that the law of the Church is supported by the papal authority itself.” (2)

 
Replies to objection n. 1

 
The Decree of Gratian and the canonical axiom "Prima Sedes a nemine judicetur – The First See cannot be judged."

 
1) The Decretum Gratiani.

 
Monsignor Antonio Piolanti writes:
"Conciliarism is an ecclesiological error, according to which the Ecuмenical Council is superior to the Pope. The remote origin of the Conciliarism is found in the juridical principle, according to which the Pope can be judged by the Church in case of heresy (Decree of Gratian, dist. XL, canon 6). [...]. When the Schism of the West (1378 - 1417) devastated the Church, many, even well-intentioned ones, found in these theories the way out of so many evils. [...]. The Pope can be called the Head of the Church [...] but since he can err, and even fall into heresy, in this case he will have to be corrected and even deposed." (Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, Rome, Studium, IV ed., 1957, pp. 82 -84, entry "Conciliarism", VI ed Proceno of Viterbo, Effedieffe, 2018).

 
The Decretum Gratiani (I pars, distinction 40, canon 6: "Si Papa") is counterfeit or falsified.

 
"Canon 6 (" Si Papa ") I pars, distinction 40 of the Decree of Gratian (composed around 1140), attributed to S. Boniface, Archbishop of Mainz († 754), is spurious, or falsified, and it is precisely on this canon 6, considered authentic by S. Ivon of Chartres (1140-1115) and by the Camaldolese monk Gratian of the twelfth century, which many theologians have addressed the purely hypothetical question of the Pope's heresy, due to which it could be judged and deposed." (Pacifico Massi, the Pope's infallible Magisterium in the Theology of Giovanni da Torquemada, Turin, Marietti, 1957, p. 117).

 
Even Albert Pigge, known as Pighius (3) († 1452) in his Hierarchiae Ecclesiasticae assertio (book IV, chap. 8, fol. 76) expressed his strong doubts about the authenticity of canon 6 "Si Papa" attributed to Gratian (Pacifico Massi, therein).

 
Mons. Vittorio Mondello, now Archbishop emeritus of Reggio Calabria, in his Degree Thesis discussed in 1963 at the Gregorian University and published in 1965, writes:
“Gratian inserts in his Decree a fragment, believed to be by S. Boniface, Archbishop of Mainz, in which is said that the Pope can be judged by the Council in case of heresy. [...]. Cardinal Deusdedit († 1110 c.ca) included it in his Canonical Collection, under the Pontificate of Victor II (1055-1057). From here it passed into the juridical collections of Ivon of Chartres (1040-1115) from which Gratian took it back as an authentic.” (4) (V. Mondello, The doctrine on the Roman Pontiff, Messina, 1965, p. 24 and p. 164).

 
According to this theory, based on this spurious canon of the Decree of Gratian, the Ecuмenical Council would be superior to the Pope. Therefore the Pope could be judged by the "imperfect" Ecuмenical Council (Episcopatus sine Papa) in case of heresy and then deposed. (5) It is for this reason that the Code of Canon Law of 1917 (and that of 1983) did not take up this canon and insisted on the principle that "the First See is not judged by anyone", otherwise It would not be "first", but "second" to the 'Episcopate or the "imperfect" Council (see A. Villien - J. de Ghellinck, Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, vol. VI, coll. 1727 ff., Entry "Gratien").

 
2) The Corpus Juris Canonici.

 
The Corpus Juris Canonici is a collection of legal docuмents, arranged in a systematic order. The decree of Gratian, the Extravagantes of Giovanni XXII and the Extravagantes communes were merged into it. However "the work has never been promulgated as a single whole, it cannot be considered as a Code that draws its unity from the will of the legislator, so that all its parts have the same value. Gregory XIII with the Constitution cuм pro munere of 1 July 1580 approved the work carried out by a commission of Cardinals and scholars appointed by St. Pius V in 1566 with the task of reviewing, correcting and expurging the Decree of Gratian (the revision was imposed above all for it)." (Encyclopedia Cattolica, Vatican City, 1950, vol. IV, col. 618, voice "Corpus Iuris Canonici” edited by Arturo Carlo Jemolo).

 
3) The Code of Canon Law of 1917

 
The canon 2332 of the CCL of 1917 states:
"All individuals of any state, degree or condition, even royal, episcopal or cardinal, who address and appeal to the ecuмenical Council against the laws, decrees, mandates of the Roman Pontiff in office, are suspected of heresy and incur ipso facto an excommunication, reserved in a special way to the Holy See."

 
Father A. Vermeersch, professor at the Gregorian University of Canon Law and Moral Theology, in his Epitome Iuris Canonici cuм commentariis (Louvain - Rome, Ed. Dessain, IV edition, 1931, tome III, p. 274, n. 532) comments on canon 2332 in the following terms:
"The prohibition to appeal to the Ecuмenical Council does not concern a deceased Pope, but a reigning Pope. In fact, the appeal is made by a judge inferior to the superior Judge. Now those who appeal to the Council against the reigning Supreme Pontiff are suspected of heresy because 'the First See is not judged by anyone' (can. 1556), and was defined in the First Vatican Council that the Roman Pontiff has the supreme power of jurisdiction even independently of the Council”.

 
Accordingly appealing to the Bishops against Pope Francis to declare him formally heretic, depose him and have another elected by the College of Cardinals, implicitly denies the dogma of faith, defined by the First Vatican Council, of the Pope's Primacy of Jurisdiction (Vatican Council I, DB, 1823, 1825, 1831). Therefore initially there is the suspicion of heresy (de haeresi suspecta) (6) towards those who resort to such appeal to the Episcopate and, if they persevere beyond 6 months in this attitude, they are certainly considered heretics.

 
The Bishops, in fact, are the successors of the Apostles in the ordinary government of their individual Diocese under the authority of the Roman Pontiff (CIC of 1917, can. 329, § 1) by divine institution (CIC of 1917, can. 3329, § 1).

 
In canon 1556 of the CCL of 1917 it is written that
"the First See is not judged by anyone".
Father A. Vermeersch comments (op. Cit., Tome III, p. 8, n. 11):
"The Pope is the Vicar of Christ and is not subjected to any human power that can be superior to him. This applies even if he commits a serious crime. If as a private doctor he were to lose the faith, what is considered to be impossible, ipso facto would lose the supreme authority ". The same A. Vermeersch, Epitome Iuris Canonici cuм commentariis (Lovanio - Rome, Editrice Dessain, IV edition, 1929, tome I, p. 222, n. 300) writes that the Pope's heresy "is completely unlikely".

 
As one sees among theologians the common opinion is that the Pope cannot be declared, after a canonical trial, a formal heretic; hypothetically he could be a material heretic, or he could utter heresies, but he cannot be judged and deposed by his inferiors (Bishops, Cardinals, Imperfect Council, or the Bishops gathered in a Synod without the Pope). In short, the heretical Pope's thesis is purely speculative and hypothetical.

 
Also Father Felice Maria Cappello of the Gregorian University in his Summa Iuris Canonici (Rome, Gregoriana, ed. VI, 1961, vol. I, pp. 297-298, n. 301, notes 21-22) speaking of the notorious heresy of the Pope writes that
"it can be considered only hypothetically and in the abstract, while practically and concretely omnino excludenda est / should be totally rejected".

 
Again Father Cappello (Summa Iuris Canonici, Rome, Gregoriana, ed. IV, 1955, vol. III, pp. 552-561, nn. 671-691) explains the same doctrine concerning those who appeal to the Council against the Reigning Supreme Pontiff teaching that they are suspected of heresy because “the First See is not judged by anyone” (can. 1556).

 
Dr. Antonio Retzbach in his commentary on the 1917 CCL entitled "The Law of the Church" (Alba di Cuneo, Paoline, 1958, p. 629) writes:
"The appeal to the Ecuмenical Council against the laws, decrees or precepts of the living Pope makes suspicions of heresy and consequently the excommunication latae sententiae or ipso facto reserved in a special way to the Holy See. Furthermore, each person who took part in the appeal attracts the personal interdict with the relative penalties provided for in can. 2275 ".

 
The personal interdict
"deprives the person directly and everywhere from the use of sacred goods. [...]. Forbidden persons are forbidden: a) to celebrate and participate in sacred rites, except at the sermon. Passive assistance can be tolerated; b) to perform, administer and receive the sacraments; c) after the sentence the interdicts will be excluded from ecclesiastical burial "(A. Reitzbach, cit., pp. 604-607).

 
4) The 1983 Code of Canon Law.

 
The 1983 CCL takes over the canon 1556 of the CCL of 1917 and teaches:
"The First See is not judged by anyone".
Luigi Chiappetta in his juridical-pastoral commentary on the New Code of Canon Law (Naples, Dehoniane, 1988, vol. II, p. 540, n. 4590) comments:
“The First See is not judged by anyone, it is a prerogative that belongs to divine right to the Roman Pontiff, by virtue of the primacy of jurisdiction which he possesses and exercises over the whole Church. [...]. Its immunity is absolute.”

Then commenting on canon 1372 of the 1983 CCL, (7) which reads: "Whoever appeals to the Ecuмenical Council or the College of Bishops against an act of the Roman Pontiff is punished with a censure” he writes:
"Such an appeal is absolutely excluded, theologically and legally, from the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff (can. 311). In this appeal [to the Episcopate against the reigning Pope, ed] there is implicit a subversive act of schism, the denial or distortion of the pontifical primacy, the result of incorrect Conciliarist theories, for which the previous CIC rightly considered the culprit as a suspect of heresy "(Luigi Chiappetta, cit., p. 505, n. 4487).

 
5) The Pope is the immediate and immediate Vicar of Christ and has a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church (de fide revelata et definita)

 
Jesus Christ, as we read on every page of the Gospel, founded his Church on Peter to lead all men to Heaven. The Apostles (whose successors are the bishops) appointed the Apostles as Rectors (see Lk., VI, 13; Mt., XVIII, 15-18; XXVIII, 18-19; John, XX, 21). He also appointed Peter Chief and Prince of the Apostles (see Mt., XVI, 18-19; John XXI, 17).

 
Starting from Revelation, contained in the Sacred Scriptures and in the Apostolic and Patristic Tradition (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Rom., Prologue; St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Adv. Haereses, III, 3, 2; St. Cyprian of Carthage , Epist., XII, 4; Pope Clement I, Epist., XLIV, 3, 45; 40, 12), the Magisterium defined as Dogma of faith revealed and defined (8) in the First Vatican Council (DB, 1823, 1825, 1831; v. Pius XII, Encyclical Sempiternus Rex, 8 September 1951) that the Pope has a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church, conferred by Jesus to Peter and his successors (the Popes).

 
The Council without the Pope would represent only the sheep without the Shepherd. Therefore the Church is not above the Pope, but under the Pope like the fold and the flock are under the Shepherd. If the Council, the Bishops, the Cardinals and the faithful, on the other hand, pretended to be non-flock but at least de facto supreme Pastor, they would not be the Pastor chosen by Christ, who is only Peter and his successors, but would be an "abusive" Pastor or a wolf disguised as a Shepherd (see A. Piolanti, Encyclopedia Cattolica, Vatican City, 1953, vol. X, coll. 6-19, entry "Primacy of St. Peter and of the Roman Pontiff"; also see St. Thomas of Aquino, S. Th., III, q. 8; Id., In Symbolum Apostolorum expositio, aa.78; consult the classical treatises on Ecclesiology of St. Robert Bellarmine, Passaglia, Franzelin, Mazzella, Billot, Zapelena, Vellico, Lattanzi, Salaverri)

 
Regarding the hypothesis of the deposition of the Pope who teaches errors, even before the dogmatic definition of the First Vatican Council, Cajetan (Apologia de comparata auctoritate Papae et Concilii, Rome, Angelicuм ed. Pollet, 1936, p. 112 ff.) wrote that the remedy for such a great evil (as "a wicked Pope") is prayer and recourse to the omnipotent divine assistance on Peter, which Jesus solemnly promised and Cajetan cites the De regimine principum of St. Thomas Aquinas (lib. I, chap. V-VI), in which the Common Doctor teaches that normally the more inclined to turn against the temporal tyrant are the “unruly”, while judicious people manage to wait until it is possible and only as a last resort they recourse to revolt. Then he concludes that, if it is necessary to have a lot of patience with the temporal tyrant and only exceptionally can one resort to armed revolt and tyrannicide, in the case of the unworthy or "criminal" Pope (9) not only is the "papicide" and the armed revolt ever lawful, but neither his deposition by the Council, the Cardinals or the faithful (see St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra Gentiles, book IV, chapter 76).

 

Objection n. "2 / a"

 
"It is agreed that the Church has no jurisdiction over the Pope, and that therefore it cannot remove a Pope from office exercising an authority superior to his own, even in the case of heresy ..."

 
Objection n. "2 / b"

 
"... It is agreed that serious responsibility is given to ecclesiastical authorities to act to remedy the evil represented by a heretical Pope. The majority of theologians maintain that the Bishops of the Church are the authorities who have the absolute duty to act in concert so as to remedy this evil."

Response to objections n. "2 / a" and n. "2 / b"

 
It seems to us that the objections "2 / a" - "2 / b" contradict each other.

 
Indeed ("2 / a") if the Church has no jurisdiction over the Pope, and cannot remove a Pope from office exercising an authority superior to his own, even in the case of heresy; how is proposition "2 / b" true, according to which the ecclesiastical authorities (the Bishops or Cardinals with jurisdiction) bear the responsibility to act to remedy the evil represented by a heretical Pope? Then the objection n. 2 a / b is in contradiction with itself.

 

 
Objection n. 3: Not even a Schism would prevent the deposition of Pope Francis.

 
"It is agreed that the evil represented by a heretic Pope is so great that it cannot be tolerated in the name of a presumed greater good.”

 
Suárez expresses the consensus in this way on this point:
"It would be extremely damaging for the Church to have such a pastor and not be able to defend itself against such a great danger; moreover, it would be contrary to the dignity of the Church to force her to remain subject to a heretic pontiff without being able to expel him from her body; since the people are used to behave in the same way as their princes and priests."

 
San Robert Bellarmine states:
"The Church would be in a miserable condition if she were forced to take as her pastor a person who behaved in a manifest way like a wolf." (Disputes, 3rd controversy, book 2, chap. 30).

 
Answer to objection n. 3

 
Bp. Athanasius Schneider in the conference published on March 21, 2019 wrote:
"A formal schism, with two or more pretenders to the papal throne - which will also be an inevitable consequence of a canonical deposition of a Pope - will necessarily cause more damage to the Church in a relatively short and very rare period in which a Pope spreads doctrinal errors or heresies."

 
Now deposing Francis would mean to find ourselves with a Pope emeritus (Benedict XVI), a Pope elected regularly, but deposed (Francis) and a de facto antipope: the new "Pontiff" elected after the deposition of Francis. Which seems to us to be a worse situation than the disastrous Pontificate of Francis alone.

 
St. Robert Bellarmine and Francisco Suárez speak of "pastor" and "pontiff", referring to the Bishop, who can be judged, condemned and deposed by his superior: the Pope and not about the Pope, who cannot be judged, condemned and deposed by his inferior: the Bishop or the entire Episcopate, which is suspected of heresy (de haeresi suspecta).

 

 
Objection n. 4: Pope Honorius was a heretic and was condemned as such.

 
In the year 681, the third Ecuмenical Council of Constantinople anathematized the Monothelite heresy and the already deceased Pope Honorius as a heretic for having supported this heresy. The condemnation of Honorius was then reaffirmed by Pope Saint Leo II in ratifying the acts of that Council. Since then, Catholic theologians and canonists have reached a consensus on various essential points concerning the public heresy of a Pope.

 
Answer to objection n. 4.

 
Pope Honorius I favored heresy, but he was not a formal heretic.

 
First of all, Bp. Athanasius Schneider, on March 21, 2019, wrote:
"For two thousand years there has never been a case in which a Pope during his office was declared deposed because of the crime of heresy. Pope Honorius I was anathematized only after his death."

 
In the second place, Sergius I, patriarch of Constantinople (10), wrote to Pope Honorius I that to bring back to the Roman Church the Monophysists and the Monothelites it was necessary to smooth the corners and soften the dogmatic formulas. Therefore it would have been better to speak of "two distinct natures, but of one operation in Christ". This formula was at least ambiguous and represented a form of masked or non-explicit Monothelitism.

 
Pope Honorius I (625-628) naively signed, in a first Letter (Epistula Scripta fraternitatis ad Sergium Patriarcam constantinopolitanum, year 634, DS 487), the Declaration of the deliberately ambiguous Epistle of the patriarch of Constantinople Sergius I (610-638), in which only one operation was affirmed in Jesus - even in the two natures (human and divine) - and therefore implicitly the uniqueness of His divine will, practically denying His human will.

 
Pope Honorius imprudently approved and signed the Epistle of Sergius without defining it or obliging it to believe it, indeed he mitigated it by adding to it, in a second Letter, the expression, though still too vague, of the existence in Christ of "two natures (human and divine) operating according to their substantial differences" (Ep. Scripta dilectissimi filii ad eundem Sergium, year 634, DS 488), (11) that is, he affirmed the moral and not physical unity of the two wills in Christ, in which there are really and physically two wills (human and divine) and the human will is conformed to the divine one.

 
The expressions of Honorius were ambivalent and therefore the heterodox interpretation of the Monothelites of a single physical and divine will in Christ was possible, but not necessary. The Pope spoke of the Incarnate Word in which two natures exist, but he hinted - though not writing it positively and explicitly - that there could be only one will in him. However, Honorius did not openly write about a single real and physical divine will, but he suggested that in Christ there was a "moral" human will, that is, subordinated and "morally" conformed to the divine physical or real will.

 
The Eastern Catholic Church (with its Bishops and theologians) read Honorius's sentence in an explicitly heretical sense, as if it explicitly denied the true and physical human will of Christ; while the Latin one (S. Massimo of Turin) tried to save Honorius and read his Epistle in an orthodox sense: a physical and real human will, morally subordinated to the divine physical will in Christ.

 
Pope John IV (640-642) wrote in 641 the famous Apologia pro Honorio Papa, in which he defended Honorius dispassionately, which was not formally heretical, but had not decisively condemned Sergio's error and monothelitism. (12) In fact Honorius implicitly admitted the existence of an action and a human (physical or real) will in Christ.

 
Now Pope St. Martin I (649-655) in a particular Roman Council, meeting in Lateran in 649, had defined the doctrine of the two wills and of the double action in Christ. In the III Ecuмenical Council of Constantinople (680-681) Pope St. Agatho (678-681), on March 28, 681, defined that in Christ there are two wills and two actions (the divine and the human) and condemned Pope Honorius for having imprudently adhered to the heresy (DB 262 ss.).

 
However, in the Decree of ratification of the Constantinopolitan Council III, Pope St. Leo II (682-683) specified, on July 3, 683 (DB 289 ff.) the limits of the condemnation of Honorius, who "did not enlighten the Apostolic Church with the doctrine of the Apostolic Tradition, but allowed the Immaculate Church to be stained with treason." (DS 563)

 
That is to say, Honorius had not been positively, explicitly and formally heretical, but a victim of Sergio's deceptions, which he had unwittingly and negligently agreed to without explicitly committing himself to the defense of Orthodox Catholic doctrine. Therefore St. Leo II condemned Honorius more for his negligence than for a conscious heterodoxy.

 
Moreover, Honorius had not defined dogmatically or obliged to believe the thesis of a single action in Christ contained in the ambiguous Declaration of the Epistle of Sergio sent to him. Therefore Honorius had not wanted to be assisted infallibly in this act, therefore he had used a form of non-dogmatic magisterium, but "pastoral and non-infallible." (13) Therefore he had been able to favor or not to prevent the error, due to ingenuity and lack of fortitude, without formally and explicitly erring, and without breaking the dogma (later defined by Vatican Council I) of papal infallibility, as the Protestants argued in the sixteenth century and the sect of "old Catholics" in the nineteenth century. In short, Honorius had favored heresy by sinning, thus, gravely, but had not been formally heretical.

 
Fr. Emile Amann, in the Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, writes:
"A legitimate Council [the 6th Ecuмenical Council of Constantinople III, year 680-681, ed.] Legitimately condemned Honorius I. Was this Council wrong? He would certainly have done so if he had addressed the question of Honorius from an exclusively dogmatic point of view, and had given a doctrinal and motivated judgment on the teaching of Honorius. Since, as I have shown above, the thought of Pope Honorius was orthodox in substance (dans le fond orthodoxe) and even its expression could, by granting a little good will, agree with the terminology that the Council would have canonized. But, as I pointed out above, the Council set itself up as a judge much less in theology than politics and the personages who had represented it. [...]. It should also be remembered that the qualification of heretic, which today applies to the one who perseveres with pertinacity in a doctrine condemned by the Church, in the sixth century had spread to the East until threatening with heresy all those who had not spoken and thought of as the official theologians of Byzantium, whatever their merits and their good faith had been "(Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, col. 119, entry" Honorius I ").

 
For this reason, today calling "heretical" Honorius is improper and not theologically correct, one can only express a historical judgment on Honorius' lack of firmness in condemning the error and explicitly defining the truth.

 
Fr. Emile Amann concludes his long and exhaustive article like this:
"In his two Letters to Sergio, did Pope Honorius propagate a heretical teaching in the exact meaning of the term as it is understood today? Certainly not (Not, certainement). [...]. Do these two Letters contain a certain number of unpleasant expressions and deductions (regrettables) that can favor the development of a heterodox doctrine? Yes, the fact is indisputable "(D. Th. C., cit., Col. 122, entry" Honorius I").

 
In short Honorius - from a historical or practical point of view - favored or not repressed the error conveniently, but - from a dogmatic or theological point of view - it was not formally heretical.

 
CONCLUSION.

 
"When the Western Schism (1378-1417) afflicted the Church, many, even well-intentioned ones, found in the Conciliarist theories, according to which the Pope can be judged and deposed by the Council, the way out of so many evils" (A Piolanti, Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, cit., P. 82).

 
They referred to the fragment that Gratian inserted in his Decree (I pars, dist. XL, col. 146, canon 6, "Si Papa"), considering it authentic, even though Pighius († 1452) already doubted its authenticity and considered it counterfeit. Today in this storm that has struck the ecclesial environment some, even in good faith, think they can remedy this evil by resorting to the same Conciliarist theses. However the Conciliarist remedy would be worse than the bad ‘Bergoglian’...

 
Indeed, the recourse to the Bishops to judge Pope Bergoglio for heresy and dismiss him is absolutely to be avoided, both theologically and juridically, since it is excluded as being heretical from the dogma defined by the First Vatican Council (DB, 1823, 1825, 1831) of the Primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff over the whole Church, including the Bishops and Cardinals (can. 311). In fact, in this appeal to the Episcopate against the reigning Pope there is implicitly a subversive act of heresy and schism (14) and de jure theologically denies that the Pope has a primacy of jurisdiction over the episcopate (heresy) and juridically de facto acts pretending to judge the Pope (schism) as being inferior to the Episcopate, and this would be the negation or distortion of the pontifical primacy, the result of wrong Conciliarist theories, for which rightly the CCL of 1917 considered the culprit as suspect of heresy or de suspect haeresi.

 
We hope that the authors of the "Open Letter" to the Bishops by asking for the indictment of Francis for heresy and his dismissal, limited themselves to showing him his errors and material heresies, and we pray God, who alone is superior to the Pope, to free us from a scourge so harmful for the salvation of souls.

 
NOTES:

 
(1) Heresy is defined as: "A doctrine that directly contradicts a truth revealed by God and defined by the Church as divinely revealed and believed to be for eternal salvation". So in Heresy there are 2 essential elements: 1) the theoretical opposition to a divinely revealed truth (for example, the theoretical denial of the primacy of jurisdiction of Peter and the Pope); 2) the practical opposition or in acting to the decisions of the ecclesiastical Magisterium (for example, acting as if the Pope were not the Supreme Authority and the First See, asking the Bishops to try the Pope and depose him as a heretic). See St. Thomas Aquinas, S. Th., II-II, q. 11.

 
(2) Instead the cardinals Francesco Roberti and Pietro Palazzini, in the Dictionary of Moral Theology (Rome, Studium, IV ed., 1968, vol. I, p. 441) argue that "Gratian's work had no official approval, but practically [speaking] the work is fundamental for canon law. [...]. In 1582 the Corpus Juris Canonici was published, but not promulgated, for this reason it was indicated until 1917 that truly it was practical to the Corpus Juris Canonici, but it was not official or legal. Even after the promulgation of the CCL of 1917, the Corpus Juris Canonici has only the value of a source ".

 (3) Albert Pighius was born in Holland in Kampen (whence the name of Campensis), around 1490 he studied in Louvain where he had Adrian Florent, the future Pope Adrian VI, as a teacher. See, E. Amann in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, Paris, year 1935, Tome XII, coll. 2094-2914, item "Pigge".

 
(4) See E. Dublanchy, in D. Th. C., vol. VII, coll. 1714-1717, entry "Infallibilité du Pape"; V. Martin, Les origines du gallicanisme, Paris, 1939, 2 vols., Lib. I, pp. 12-13.

 
(5) See F. Roberti - A. Van Hove - A. Stickler, Gratian. Camaldolese texts and studies, Rome, 1949.

 
(6) There is "suspicion of heresy" (CCL 1917, can. 1258) when it is not yet certain that in those who resort to this appeal to the Episcopate against the Pope there is heresy, but there is a tendency to consider him as such, namely it is suspected that he is. Only after 6 months of persistence in this appeal one has the certainty of heresy, without fear of being mistaken.
"Those who are suspected of heresy are not yet punishable as such, but they become, if warned, persevere in their opinion and do not remove the cause of the suspect and within 6 months of the warning are considered heretics and incur the penalties established for them: the excommunication latae sententiae or ipso facto "(Antonio Retzbach, The Law of the Church, Alba di Cuneo, Paoline, 1958, pp. 620-622).

 
(7) Which takes up the can. 2332 of the CCL of 1917.

 
(8) A truth contained in the Deposit of Divine Revelation (Tradition and Scripture), but not defined as such and proposed to believe by the Magisterium of the Church to the faithful is called "Truth of divine faith" or "of divine and revealed faith"; if instead the revealed truth is also defined and proposed to believe by the ecclesiastical Magisterium, it says "Truth of divine-catholic faith" or "of revealed and defined faith". Perfect heresy is opposed to revealed and defined Truth or of divine-catholic faith, if the definition is missing, but the revelation of the denied truth is clear, who denies it is at least “Next to Heresy”.

 
(9) V. Mondello, The Doctrine of Cajetan on the Roman Pontiff, Messina, Arti Grafiche di Sicilia, 1965, p. 65.

 
(10) Mons. Umberto Benigni, Social History of the Church, Milan, Vallardi, 1922, vol. III, pp. 436-437.

 
(11) In this second Epistle the original Latin text of Honorius was lost, we only have the translation in Greek and a posthumous translation in Latin of 680 (AA. VV., Encyclopedia of the Popes, Rome, Institute of the Italian Encyclopedia, 2000, 1 ° vol., Pp. 585-590, item "Honorius I", edited by Antonio Sennis).

 
(12) M. Greschat - E. Guerriero, The great book of the Popes, Cinisello Balsamo, S. Paolo, 1994, 1st vol., Pp. 121-125; AA. VV., I Papi, Milano, Tea, 1993, pp. 34-37.

 
(13) See Encyclopedia of the Popes, cit., Rome, Institute of the Italian Encyclopedia, 2000, 1st vol., Pp. 585-590, item "Onorio I", edited by Antonio Sennis.

 
(14) Heresy denies a dogmatic truth, professing an error; the Schism in practice rejects submission to the Pope by acting as if he were not the head of the universal Church. The Schism initially de jure or in theory could maintain the right faith theoretically recognizing the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff even if de facto or practically acting as if the Primacy does not exist, but in the long run the Schism inevitably falls into Heresy because it comes to deny the primacy of papal authority (see St. Thomas Aquinas, S. Th., II-II, q. 39).