To Sedevacate? - Pt. 1

I decided to pick up St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine as I wrestle with the question of what to do regarding Pope Francis. It is possible he is an Antipope and I have indeed referred to him as such before and while the sedevacantist position has its grounding in historical theology, I don't think one should ever jump to it rashly on the basis of a few texts. In the next part, I'll show that St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine can definitely be read to support the sedevacantist position but for now, I want to go over some of the things he states about whether or not the Pope could be a heretic. There is a distinction he makes between occultic (hidden) heretics and manifest heretics. Only the latter is ipso facto excommunicated but the former, while holding error, can still in fact be full members of the Church. I'll discuss this distinction more in my next post too. Bellarmine has this to say about four opinions on whether the Pope can err:

"1) Should the Pope define something, even as Pope, and even with a general Council, it can be heretical in itself, and he can teach others heresy and that this has in fact happened thus. This is the opinion of all the heretics of this time, and especially of Luther, who in his book on councils recorded the errors of even general councils that the Pope approved. It is also the opinion of Calvin, who asserted that at some time the Pope with the whole college of Cardinals manifestly taught heresy on that question of whether the soul of man is extinguished with the body, which is a manifest lie, as well show a little later. Next, he teaches in the same book that the Pope can err with a general council.

2) The second opinion is that the Pope even as Pope can be a heretic and teach heresy, if he defines something without a general Council, something that this opinion holds did in fact happen. Nilos Cabásilas has followed this opinion in his book against the primacy of the Pope; a few others follow the same opinion, especially amongst the Parisian theologians such as John Gerson, Almain and still, Alonso de Castro as well as Pope Adrian VI in his question on Confirmation; all of these constitute infallibility of judgment on matters of faith not with the Pope but with the Church or with a General Council.

3) The Third opinion is another extreme, that the Pope cannot in any way be a heretic nor publicly teach heresy, even if he alone should define some matter, as Albert Pighius says.

4) The fourth opinion is that in a certain measure, whether the Pope can be a heretic or not, he cannot define a heretical proposition that must be believed by the whole Church in any way. This is a very common opinion of nearly all Catholics. ...

From these four opinions, the first is heretical; the second is not properly heretical, for we see that some who follow this opinion are tolerated by the Church, even though it seems altogether erroneous and proximate to heresy. The third is probable, though it is still not certain. The fourth is very certain and must be asserted." (On the Roman Pontiff, Bk. IV, ch. II)

We see that the opinion that the Pope can only be deemed infallible when speaking in agreement with the Church and with the Councils on his own is not necessarily heretical as determined by Bellarmine. Of course, Vatican I seems to suggest that this opinion is now a heresy but, it limits the Papal authority to a matter of ex cathedra statements. If the Chair of St. Peter is derived from the Church, then only speaking in accordance with the Councils and the Church, and not of himself, can the Pope be said to be speaking infallibly. So there is a legitimate case to be made still for the second opinion. That said, regardless of how the ex cathedra statement is interpreted as, it is only when he is defining a matter of faith. We have had multiple encyclicals and councils containing errors as of recently that have never been submitted as de fide statements. To say the Church is bound to error when it is only made pastoral and not as a matter of dogma is erroneous. For the Church is only bound to that which is a de fide matter. Neo-Catholics aren't particularly conservative as they pretend to be. They've only been concerned with conserving the mistakes made by liberals. Some of them have even insisted the Church is bound by everything a Pope says or does, which is highly inaccurate. This is why Bellarmine also states that, "just as it would be lawful to resist a Pontiff invading a body, so it is lawful to resist him invading souls or disturbing a state, and much more should he endeavor to destroy the Church" (On the Roman Pontiff, Bk. II, Ch. XXIX)

Now, Pope Celestine I shows in his epistle that Nestorius lost authority the moment he began to preach his heresies. But we note in the case of St. Cyprian that he viciously disagreed with the Pope's question on whether or not heretics should be rebaptized. Dom John Chapman notes this instance, commenting that "St. Jerome...tells us: 'Bl. Cyprian attempted to avoid heresy, and therefore rejecting the baptism conferred by heretics, sent [the acts of] an African Council on this matter to Stephen, who was then bishop of the city of Rome, and twenty-second from St. Peter; but his attempt was in vain." (Studies on the Early Papacy, 48) The Pope had Tradition on his side in this matter. Though he never defined the position as a de fide statement, the Pope had the Tradition on his side, St. Cyprian did not. St. Cyprian could have definitely been considered a Donatist heretic but he was not. He was not because he was moved for what he felt was orthodoxy and his push toward his position was for what he resisted as a heresy. Citing St. Vincent of Lerins Chapman writes, "For who is so mad as to doubt that blessed Cyprian, that light of all saints and martyrs, with his colleagues shall reign for eternity with Christ? Or who, on the contrary, so sacrilegious as to deny that the Donatists and the other plagues, who boast that it is by the authority of that Council that they rebaptize, shall burn with the Devil for ever?" (50)

We might finish this section with words of the Great Enunciator, Marcel Lefebvre,

"To be a heretic, it is necessary to be pertinacious in adhering to the error; it is not enough to have uttered an heretical phrase. For example, on the subject of the Blessed Trinity―a very difficult subject subject―we might make a mistake or blunder in speech and say something that is not very orthodox. If someone points it out to us we retract; but if they accuse us of heresy, or excommunicate us...how frightful." (Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, 16)

I want to also add that sedevacantists should not be treated as heretics or Protestants. That is grotesque slander from the Neo-Catholics who have shown that they only intend to conserve every single mistake the liberals in the Church have made via "pastoral" decisions any way. Sedevacantists may adhere to the position that the See of Peter remains vacant as a heretic holds that position but they are still in a valid Apostolic Succession. The current situation the Church is in right now is comparable to the Great Schism of the 14th century. That year in which we had a multitude of claimants to the Papal Throne and holy people on both sides adhering to the other as legitimate. We are in that situation currently. Sedevacantists must be treated as our fellow brethren. They are often better Catholics than some of those who uphold the current Pope as legitimate too.

Jesus Christ, King of Republics?

Abp. Marcel Lefebvre's contributions to the Catholic Church's theology cannot be underestimated nor tossed to the side. Though many neo-conservatives and liberals will cringe up to this, he is among the most important theologians of the 20th century and his orthodoxy is unquestionable. His comments and challenges to Vatican II cannot be easily dismissed when looked at. He is the Great Enunciator of the Faith and his intercession will guide us through the most confusing time in the Church. To toss him aside would be an egregious error to commit. One of the resounding condemnations Abp. Marcel Lefebvre gives is against the democratic ideology that has sprung up in the world today. Especially when we see a so-called Catholic President claiming so much devotion toward this democratic ideology, it has become a form of modern day idolatry.

Lefebvre differentiates between the democratic ideology and the democratic regime. Rousseau's doctrines is summed up subsequently as a "total transfer of every associate, with all his rights, to the whole community" (They Have Uncrowned Him, 47). It is this "liberal postulate of the individual-king...the necessary popular sovereignty" which illegitmizes "every regime that does not have as a basis the popular sovereignty, or that in which governors assure them that they receive power from God" (ibid). Stemming from this comes a crusade to establish the democratic ideology and to do away with the "old regime". It is an ideology that is inspired against, not just monarchical rule, but against the sovereignty of God. Catholic political doctrine acknowledges that all government has been instituted by God to govern and exercise the sword of His wrath (Rom. 13:1-4). This does not mean government is owed unswerving obedience for if the government goes against the divine prerogative, then it must be resisted. This is because government comes from God that it is not an act of rebellion to resist such a government.

Lefebvre shows that this idea of popular sovereignty has been condemned by the Church. Citing Pope Leo XIII, "[a] good number of our contemporaries, walking in the footsteps  of those who, in the last century, bestowed upon themselves the title of philosopher, pretend that all power comes from the people; that, as a consequence, authority does not properly belong to those who exercise it, but only by virtue of a popular mandate....Catholics separate themselves from these new teachers; they want to seek in God the right to govern, and they make it derive from Him as from its natural source and its necessary principle." (Diuturnum). Government derives its full authority from God, not from the people who are governed. It is this ideology which Pontius Pilate first invoked. St. Philaret of Chernigov writes, "Pilate now acted in a way that was a clear insult to common sense: he asked for a decision from the people, who had no right to make such a decision." (Homily 41 On the Passion Of Our Lord Jesus Christ) Jesus did not say the people were given authority over Him but that Pontius Pilate was given authority over Him!

The democratic ideology is the ideology of popular sovereignty. This does not mean the democratic regime is necessarily anathema. The democratic regime is the idea of "the participation of the people in the power" (They Have Uncrowned Him, 49). "Without preferring democracy, the [St. Thomas Aquinas] considers that concretely, the best political regime is a monarchy in which all the citizens have a certain part of the power, for example in choosing those who govern under the monarchy. This is, says St. Thomas, 'a government that combines monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy." (ibid)

So what would be an approved democratic regime? The Great Enunciator provides the following considerations: the principle of popular sovereignty is limited to the democratic regime and respects the legitimacy of a monarchy, never asserting itself as the derivative of all power as in the Rouseauist philosophy but acknowledging that God is the final source of authority and the rulers only governing as vicars of the people in accordance that the idea is the people who choose them are choosing them for the reason that they themselves cannot govern. The rights of God and the decalogue are the principle basis of the Constitution and are set down in the Constitution. The government is instituted by God and rules according to the laws of God. Ultimately, democracy "must, all the same, have a King: Jesus Christ" (50-51).

The Lerintian canon

St. Vincent of Lérins is the attributed author of the Commonitory though not much is known about him other than that he was a prisoner at a monastery of the island of Lérins. It has also been hypothesized that St. Vincent even wrote the Athanasian Creed based on the statements of Trinitarian theology that St. Vincent establishes. St. Vincent is a proponent of antiquity over novelty and because of this, his canon has been heeded by traditionalists of many denominations of Christianity. By what authority does your particular denomination heed? For many Catholics, we live under this impression that we're the only Christian expression of the faith that gives heed to authority. We have a Pope. We listen to him. It's whatever he says. We love our catechisms. Etc. But this is not how the authority of our faith has historically taken root.

I have often inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent in learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church. (The Commonitory, ch. II, 4)

St. Vincent asks the following and gives an answer, "What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty." (ch. III, 7) If it is a small portion, then we follow the decrees of an ancient General Council, if there be any, above all else. The Catholic Christian is obligated to hold fast to the doctrines of antiquity over and above all other novelties. This is how the Catholic faith has been preserved and handed down to us through the ages. There may be many who hold to the novelty but St. Vincent instructs us to follow the example of the martyrs and confessors who held fast to the antiquity of the faith over the novelties that the wolves had been stating was the Catholic faith (ch. V). There are many instances throughout history of this whether it be on the Apollinarianism, Donatism, Arianism, iconoclasticism, etc. But the Catholic faith was only preserved through the final rejection and denunciation of these errors.

Appealing to Galatians 1:8, St. Vincent affirms that "if any one, be he who may, attempt to alter the faith once for all delivered, let him be accursed" (ch. VIII). There may be eminent and well-learned men who arise doing this...reject them! (ch. 10) Could it be an angel? Reject it! A friend? Accursed! The Lerintian canon is simple. These men are permitted to fail in order to test one's faith in God. I remember my mentor when I was an Anglican. He was a Ruthenian Catholic deacon and he always talked about how he was "old-fashioned", trusting only in God, not the earthly hierarchy. I learned much about the Christian faith from him. I took this to heart very well. We put our trust in God, not in Tertullian or Origen of whose errors were particularly great to us because they were so well-learned (XVII-XVIII) The true Catholic, according to St. Vincent, "will believe that, and only that, which he is sure the Catholic Church has held universally and from ancient time; but that whatsoever new and unheard-of doctrine he shall find to have been furtively introduced by some one or another, besides that of all, or contrary to that of all the saints, this, he will understand, does not pertain to religion, but is part of a trial" (ch. XX, 48)

We now turn to that great and saintly enunciator of our Catholic faith, Abp. Marcel Lefebvre who was one of the few who took a stance against the regime of novelty in the Church at its earliest goings. How then, are we to understand the authority of the Pope? Does doctrine develop? That doctrine develops, Lefebvre refutes,

But, one will object, the dogma that makes Mary the Mother of God only dates back to 431, transubstantiation to 1215, papal infallibility to 1870, and so on. Has there not been an evolution of? No, not all. The dogmas which have been defined in the course of the ages were contained in Revelation; the Church has just made them explicit. When Pope Pius XII defined in 1950 the dogma of the Assumption, he said specifically that this truth of the assumption into heaven of the Virgin Mary, body and soul, was included in the deposit of Revelation that had already existed. (Open Letter to Confused Catholics, 125)

Quoting Bossuet, he writes "When it is a matter of explaining the principles of Christian morality and essential dogmas of the Church everything that does not appear in the Tradition of all time, and especially the early times, is from then on not only suspect but wrong and to be condemned" (ibid). And "we must not forget the Church is not totalitarian society of the Nazi or Marxist type" (142). The Pope can only be infallible when he has defined an already established position of the Church but in assessing whether a Pope is to be condemned for heresy is subjected to the degree he intended to bind the Church to his error (148). When we look at the document Fratelli Tutti of Pope Francis, we read a lot of errors into it. And many people have lost the faith that Francis is the Pope. But to what extent the document is infallible needs to be assessed. As a sober friend of mine stated, "the document is not infallible". Precisely! Not only did it not declare itself to be infallible but it is writhe with error and fraud! Can we accept Vatican II? All of the dogmatic councils are binding but the Vatican II Council was not conferred dogmatic standing by the Popes. The Popes did not wish this. We cannot abrogate the Council of Trent or the First Seven Ecumenical Councils, because they were declared dogmatic. Vatican II, we can accept the statements in it that pertain to religion and the Tradition of the Church, but we are not bound to accept the whole of (127).

So let us defend then that which was believed everywhere, always, and by all! Amen!