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.”
https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/on-the-roman-pontiff/
St. Robert Bellarmine
De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30
To prove that "manifest heretics" are ipso facto deposed, Bellarmine quotes Cyprian, who taught that Antipope Novation would not have been able to retain the Pontificate, even if he had at one time truly possessed it, if he "separated himself from the body of bishop of his fellow bishops and from the unity of the Church."
No recent pope has "separated himself from the body of his fellow bishops and from the unity of the Church."
Have any of those who constantly quote Bellarmine on the ipso facto loss of office ever bothered to read what the Fathers of the Church that Bellarmine quotes and references to support his position actually taught? If you ever do so, here's what you will discover:
1) Not a single Father of the Church that Bellarmine quotes or references teaches that "a manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed." Not one.
2) What else you will also discover is that the heretics that the Fathers of the Church are referring to in the quotes the Bellarmine references are referring to heretics who publicly left from the Church or were never members of the Church to begin with, and who were administering the sacraments illicitly. In other words, they were referring to heretics who were also schismatics. The quote that Bellarmine references from St. Thomas to prove that manifest heretics lose jurisdiction is also referring to schismatics, and hence to heretics who are also schismatics.
The one exception of a heretic who was not also a schismatic is Nestorius.
3) What you will discover if you look into the case of Nestorius is that he was not ipso facto deposed. He remained the bishop of Constantinople until he was deposed by the Council of Ephesus. Below is what happened in the case of Nestorius:* December of 428: Nestorius began preaching his "new heresy" ("new heresy" is what the early canonists called a heresy that had not yet been the subject of a judgment by a council) that that Mary is not the Mother of God, but only the Mother of Christ.
* This resulted in a division between those who agreed with Nestorius and those who did not, with some of the latter being excommunicated by Nestorius and the bishops who sided with him.
* St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, sent Nestorius a formal warning informing him that his position was heretical.* Nestorius persisted in his error.* St. Cyril sent Nestorius a second formal warning.
* Nestorius continued to persist in his error.
* St. Cyril sent Nestorius a second formal warning.
* Nestorius continued to persist in his error.
* St. Cyril sent a letter to Pope Celestine to apprise him of the situation, and to inform him that he would not separate from communion with Nestorius without a judgment from the Pope.
* Pope Celestine convoked a council to consider the accusations against Nestorius. The council met in August of 430 during which the writings of Nestorius were carefully examined and his errors condemned. Celestine wrote a letter to Nestorius advising him of the findings of the Council. The letter informed Nestorius that this was his third and final warning and gave him 10 days to recant. If he failed to do so, he would cease to be in communion with the Church and would be ipso facto deposed. Included with the letter were 12 propositions that Nestorius was required to affirm and profess.
The following is taken from Celestine’s letter to Nestorius: Pope Celestine to Nestorius, August 430: “What words can We address you with, in these questions which are blasphemous even to consider? 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. …
“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 [of bishops] 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.”
So, after being judged by a Pope and Council, and after receiving three warnings, Pope Celestine still considered Nestorius to be a member of the episcopal college and in communion with the Catholic Church. Only if Nestorius failed to renounce his errors within the time allotted (10 days) would he be “cast off from the communion of the universal Church.”
· Pope Celestine charged St. Cyril with delivering the letter to Nestorius.
· In August of 430, Celestine also sent a letter to those who had been excommunicated by Nestorius, informing them that the excommunications pronounced against them were null and void. The reason given by the Pope was that anyone who was “wavering in the faith” (not “defected from the Faith" as the Sedes translate it) by preaching such errors, could not excommunicate anyone.
The following is from Celestine’s letter to those excommunicated by Nestorius:
Celestine to the Clergy of Constantinople, August 430: “The impious disputor has been deserted by the Holy Ghost, since he has formed opinions contrary to the same Spirit. 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). …
“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? … Nevertheless, lest his sentence seem to carry weight even for a time, who had already called forth a divine sentence against himself, 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 has wavered in the faith [not "defected from the faith" which is how the Sedevacantists translate it] by preaching such things was unable to expel or remove anyone.”
Be sure to notice that although Celestine declared the unjust excommunications null, he did not yet believe Nestorius had been cut off by the Lord as a ruler of Israel (the Church). On the contrary, according to the Pope himself, Nestorius would only be cut off from the Church if he persisted in his error after the 10 days allotted for him to recant had expired. If he failed to do so, he would be ipso facto deposed at the end of the 10th day.
Cyril delivered Celestine’s letter to Nestorius in December of 430 (mail traveled slowly in those days). However, before he was able to do so, Nestorius and others had in good faith appealed to Emperor Theodosius to convoke a general council to settled the doctrinal dispute and the Emperor had agreed.
When St. Cyril learned this (after delivering the letter to Nestorius and after the 10 days has passed), he wrote to Pope Celestine to ask if Nestorius should be considered deposed. He replied by saying he should not. Pope Celestine said the sentence of deposition should be kept in abeyance until the council had rendered a judgment. Therefore, according to the Pope himself, not only did Nestorius remain in communion with the Church after he began preaching his heresy, he remained in communion with the Church and a member of the college of bishops after he had been warned twice, after he had been judged by the Pope at a Council in Rome, after he had been warned a third time and even and after the 10 days he was given to recant had elapsed. Only when he was formally deposed by the Council of Ephesus in June of 431, did Nestorius lose his office as Patriarch of Constantinople.
The following is taken from St. Alphonsus’ detailed account of the case of Nestorius:
St. Alphonsus, History of Heresies and Their Refutation: “27. St. Cyril appointed four Egyptian Bishops to certify to Nestorius the authenticity of this letter [from Pope Celestin] and two others - one to the people of Constantinople, and another to the abbots of the monasteries - to give them notice likewise of the letter having been expedited. These Prelates arrived in Constantinople on the 7th of the following month of December, 430, and intimated to Nestorius the sentence of deposition passed by the Pope, if he did not retract in ten days; but the Emperor Theodosius, previous to their arrival, had given orders for the convocation of a General Council, at the solicitation both of the Catholics, induced to ask for it by the monks, so cruelly treated by Nestorius, and of Nestorius himself, who hoped to carry his point by means of the Bishops of his party, and through favour of the Court. St. Cyril, therefore, wrote anew to St. Celestine, asking him (23), whether, in case of the retractation of Nestorius, the Council should receive him, as Bishop, into communion, and pardon his past faults, or put into execution the sentence of deposition already published against him. St. Celestine answered, that, notwithstanding the prescribed time had passed, he was satisfied that the sentence of deposition should be kept in abeyance, to give time to Nestorius to change his conduct. Nestorius thus remained in possession of his See till the decision of the Council. This condescension of St. Celestine was praised in the Council afterwards, by the Legates, and was contrasted with the irreligious obstinacy of Nestorius (24).”
Nestorius remained in legal possession of his see until he was deposed by the Council of Ephesius. And if he legally retained his office until June of 431, he retained his jurisdiction until June of 431.
What Nestorius did lose when he began preaching his “new heresy” in December of 428, was the authority to excommunicate those who disagreed with him. This is found in the famous canon Audivimus, 24, quaest. 1, which provides that “if anyone shall have devised a new heresy in his heart, to the extent that he begins to preach such things, he can condemn no man.” That is what happened with Nestorius. He wasn’t ipso facto deposed when he began preaching his new heresy; he was ipso facto deprived of the authority to excommunicate anyone for disagreeing with him. He lost the authority to bind, but not to lose.
No bishop has ever been ipso facto deposed for heresy without first being convicted of heresy by the Church, unless he publicly separated himself from the Church (from the body of bishops).
That explains why Bellarmine taught that an heretical Pope will not be deposed, or deprived of his jurisdiction, unless he is first convicted of heresy
“T]he Roman Pontiff cannot be deprived of the right to summon a Council, and preside over it – a right he has possessed for 1500 years – unless he were first legitimately judged and convicted by a council, and is not the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover, to the objection that the same man ought not to be both judge and the party (being judged): I say this applies to private men, but not to the Supreme prince. For the supreme prince, as long as he has not been declared or legitimately judged to have fallen from his rule, always remains the supreme judge, even if he litigates with himself as a party. … Moreover, the Pope is not the only judge in a council, but has many colleagues, namely, all the bishops, who, if they could convict him of heresy, could judge and depose him, even against his will. Therefore, the heretics have nothing, for why should they complain if the Roman Pontiff presides at a Council before he is condemned?" (Bellarmine, De Concilii I, 11)
A heretical Pope always retains the supreme authority unless he is first legitimately convicted of heresy by a council. That’s the teaching of Bellarmine.
Bellarmine clarifies his position further in response to Protestants who argued that a condition required for a council to be legitimate, is that the Pope temporarily release the bishops from the Oath of Allegiance that they swear to him, so they will be free to speak their mind during the council. Bellarmine explains why this condition is both unjust and impertinent:
Bellarmine: "The sixth condition is both unjust and impertinent. Unjust, because inferiors ought not be free from the obedience owed to their superiors, unless first he were legitimately deposed or declared not to be a superior ... Impertinent because the oath does not take away the freedom of the Bishops, which is necessary in Councils: for they promise to be obedient to the supreme Pontiff, which is understood as the entire time he is Pope, and provided he commands those things which, according to God and the sacred canons, he can command; but they do not swear that they are not going to say what they think in the Council, or that they are not going to depose him, if they were to clearly prove that he is a heretic." (Ibid).
If the bishops can prove that the Pope is a heretic during a council that the Pope himself convoked, they can depose him. Prior to that, all must obey him, “provided he commands those things which, according to God and the sacred canons, he can command.” That is the teaching of Bellarmine.
Topic: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism? (Read 56499 times)