Tishbite (Augustine) 🇻🇦

In our next podcast, we will address the loss of office for heresy, and specifically the Sedevacantist error that the mortal sin of heresy (and loss of faith) causes the loss of office. If that were true, an occult heretic would be ipso facto deposed, since occult heretics are guilty of the sin of heresy. Bellarmine, who the Sedevacantists mistakenly believe supports their position, refuted this error in numerous places. For example, in De Ecclesia Militanta, he wrote: "It is certain that an occult heretic, if he be a bishop or even the supreme Pontiff, does not lose his jurisdiction, or dignity, or the title of head in the Church, until he either publicly separates himself from the Church, or, being convicted of heresy, is separated against his will.” (Bellarmine, De Ecclesia Militante, bk III, ch. X) Notice what he said. If a pope falls into formal heresy (an occult heretic is guilty of formal heresy), but has not separated himself from the Church, he will remain pope and retain his jurisdiction unless and until he is "convicted of heresy" by the Church. Bellarmine teaches the same in De Romano Pontifice, book 2, ca 30. In reply to the second opinion, he explains that a pope who falls into heresy is not ipso facto deposed by divine law. Rather, just as he is made Pope by God through the agency of men, so to is he deprived of his jurisdictio by God through the agency of men: "The second opinion is that the pope, by the very fact that he falls into heresy, even if it is only interior, is outside the Church deposed by God, for which reason he can be judged by the Church—that is, he is declared deposed by divine law—and, if he still refuses to step down, deposed de facto. This is the opinion of John de Turrecremata, Book 4, Part 2, Chapter 20. However, it does not convince me. "For jurisdiction is indeed given to the pope by God, but with the cooperation of human agency. as is obvious; because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, Therefore, jurisdiction is not taken away by God except through human agency. But an occult heretic (internally only; not externally occult) cannot be judged by men, nor would he relinquish his power voluntarily. Moreover, the foundation of this opinion is the claim that occult heretics are outside the Church, which we have shown at length to be false in Book 1, On the Church." (De Romano Pontifice, bk 11, cap 30) The human agency through which one is made pope are the Cardinal electors; the human agency through which he is deposed are the bishops at a council. God both confers jurisdiction on a pope, and deprives him of it, through the agency of men. That is the teaching of Bellarmine. And it is confirmed from the fact that no prelate has ever been ipso facto deposed for heresy while he remained in possession of his see. Bellarmine’s Refutation of the Sedevacantists of His Day In his book on the Marks of the Church, Bellarmine refutes the Sedevacantists of his day (the Protestants) who, like their counterparts in our day, claimed that the Pope and bishops in union with him had defected from the faith and been ipso facto deposed. How did Bellarmine refute them? Did he attempt to defend the orthodoxy of the Pope and bishops agaist their accusation? No. That would have been a useless effort, since the Protestants were convinced that they alone had the true faith. How, then, did he refute them? He did so by explaining that Catholic Bishops, who are in peacefully possess of their sees, cannot be deprived of them until they are first legitimately judged. The following is Bellarmine's reply to the Lutheran Sedevacantist, Johannes Brentius: “They [Protestants] object that Papist bishops have departed from the true faith and are no longer bishops; thus, pious ministers can rightly take up their places. “I answer Brentius' argument as follows (even if we concede that there is doubt as to who has the true faith, although we are certain that it resides with us): Catholic bishops, who have possessed their Sees peacefully for so many centuries, cannot be deprived of them unless they be legitimately judged and condemned. For, in every controversy the party that is in actual possession enjoys the benefit of the doubt. Now, it is certain that the Catholic bishops have never been condemned in a legitimate judgment. For who has condemned them, aside from the Lutherans? But they are the accusers, not the judges! For, who has made them our judges?” (Bellarmine, On the Marks of the Church, cap. viii) Catholic bishops who remain in peaceful possession of their sees cannot be deprived of them unless they are legitimately judged. Clearly, the Sedevacantists of our day do not agree with this teaching of Bellarmine. On the contrary, they agree with the Protestants, whose opinion Bellarmine refuted using an argument that equally refutes them. In his book On Councils, Bellarmine answers another objection raised by Protestants, which sheds further light on his position. The Protestants raised the following objection: “The Roman Pontiff should not convene a Council, nor preside over it; rather, he should be on the side as one of the litigants - since he is the very person being accused - and the same person should not be both judge and party [to a case].” Here is Bellarmines reply: “The third condition is unjust, because the Roman Pontiff cannot be deprived of his right to convene Councils and preside over them—a right he has held for 1,500 years—unless he is first convicted by a legitimate judgement, and not the Supreme Pontiff. As for the argument that the same person cannot be both judge and party, I maintain that this applies to private individuals, not to a supreme ruler; for a supreme ruler, as long as it has not been declared or legitimately judged to have fallen from his position, remains the supreme judge, even when he himself is a party to a dispute.” As we see, according to Bellarmine a pope (one accused of heresy) remains pope and retains the authority to convoke and reside over a council, unless he has bee legitimately judged and convicted of heresy and is no longer pope. Bellarmine goes on to explain who could convict a pope of heresy: “It should also be noted that the Pontiff is not the sole judge in a Council; rather, he has many colleagues—namely, all the Bishops. If they were able to convict him of heresy, they would also have the authority to judge and depose him, even against his will. Therefore, heretics have no grounds for complaint if the Roman Pontiff presided over a Council before he had been condemned.” (De concilii,lib. 1, cap xxi) It is the bishops at a council who have the authority to convict a pope of heresy. But how could they then depose the pope, which is a coercive act, when the pope is not subject to any coercive power on earth? The reason they can do so is because, according to Bellarmine’s opinion, the pope would be deprived of his jurisdiction – and ceased to be Pope - the moment they convicted him. So, the pope who possessed the authority to convoke the council, is deprived of his authority (by God) during the council, through the agency of men. How can this be reconciled with Bellarmine’s teaching that a "manifest heretic" is ipso facto deposed? As we saw above, Bellarmine taught that one of two things is required for a heretical pope (an occult heretic) to be deprived of his pontifical dignity, jurisdiction, and his title as head of the Church. One is being convicted of heresy by the Church. The other is openly separating himself from the Church (falling into schism). To defend his opinion that a manifest heretic being ipso facto deposed, Bellarmine quoted St. Cyprian's teaching concerning Novatian. Novation didn’t merely err in doctrine; he was a schismatic, who had been illicitly consecrated by three intoxicated bishop (per Pope Cornelius), before declaring himself Pope. Novation was an antipope who was never a member of the episcopal college. What Cyprian says in the quote that Bellarmine referenced to support his own position, is that, even if Novation had been ordained legally before he left the Church, he could not hold the episcopal. Why? Because he was separate from the body of bishops: In Cyprian's own words: "He [Novatian] could not hold the episcopate, even if he had been made a bishop before, since he has cut himself off from the body of his fellow bishops and from the unity of the Church; since the apostle admonishes us to mutually sustain one another, and not withdraw from the unity which God has appointed, saying, 'Bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.' (Ephesians 4:2-3). He who observes neither unity of spirit nor the concord of peace, but severs himself from the bonds of the Church, and from the fellowship of her priests, cannot have episcopal power or honor, since he has refused to maintain either the unity or the peace of the episcopate.” (Cyprian) The reason Cyprian said Novation could not possess the episcopate is because he was separated from unity with the body of bishops. So, the example Bellarmine used to support his position that manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed, wasn’t someone who merely erred in doctrine; it was a heretic who was also a schismatic, which is what the Fathers of the Church almost always mean when they speak of heretics. A heretic was one who belonged to a heretical sect (a heretic who was also a schismatic). St. Thomas confirms this when he says, “whoever is a heretic is also a schismatic, but not conversely." One can be a schismatic without being a heretic, but they can’t be a heretic without being a schismatic. It is heretics, understood in this sense, who are separated from the Church. This is clear from the following taken from the Douay Catechism of 1649: “Question. Why may not Heretics and Schismatics justly claim to be in the Unity of the Church and Members of Christ's body? “Answer. Because Catholics can show to each sect of Heretics and Schismatics the time they began; the date of their separation from the Church: the name of the person or persons of their sect who first separated themselves, and the cause of their condemnation; whilst the Catholic Church always was from the beginning. (Douay Catechism). Heretics are those who belong to a heretical sect, or those who have been convicted of heresy by the Church. A heretic in the ecclesiastical forum Another way to understand this is by distinguishing those who are guilty of the sin of heresy (in the internal forum), and those who are legally recognized by the Church (in the ecclesiastical forum) as heretics. A person can certainly be guilty of the sin of heresy without being in schism or have been juridically declared a heretic; but, if they have been lawfully received into the Church, they are not considered to be heretics by the Church (in the ecclesiastical forum), unless they leave the Church or are juridically declared heretics. And if they are not deemed heretics by the Church, they can hold office in the Church, even if they are interiorly guilty of the sin of heresy.