In
debates among traditional Catholics
regarding the legitimacy of the post-Conciliar popes, the following quote from
St. Robert Bellarmine has been repeatedly recycled:
Just as it is licit to resist the
Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks
souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I
say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the
execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him,
or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior. (De Romano Pontifice. II.29.)
Some use this
quote, taken from Bellarmine’s lengthy treatise defending the power of the
pope, to condemn “sedevacantism” — the thesis which maintains that the
post-Conciliar hierarchy, including the post-Conciliar popes, lost their office
ipso facto through heresy. I have
seen it employed this way no less that three times in the past four months —
once in The Remnant (Edwin Faust,
“Signa Temporum,” 15 April 1994, 8), once in The Catholic (Michael Farrell, Letter to Editor, “Simple Answer to
the Sede-Vacantists,” April 1994, 10), and once by a Society of St. Pius X
priest.
Traditional
Catholics who reject the New Mass and the post-Vatican II changes but still
maintain that the post-Conciliar popes legitimately hold office — a group which
includes the Society, Michael Davies, and many others — also see in this passage
some sort of justification for recognizing someone as pope but rejecting his
commands.
The quote has
been cited over and over to support these positions, in complete good faith, no
doubt. Alas, it has been taken out of context and completely misapplied. In its
original context, Bellarmine’s statement neither condemns the principle behind
the sedevacantist position, nor justifies resisting laws promulgated by a
validly-elected pope.
What is more, in
the chapter immediately following the statement quoted, Bellarmine defends the
thesis that a heretical pope automatically loses his office.
In passing, we
should first note how it is a stupid calumny to cite this passage and to
suggest that sedevacantists “judge,” “punish,” or “depose” the pope. They do no
such thing. They merely apply to the words and acts of post-Conciliar popes a
principle enunciated by many great canonists and theologians, including (as we
shall see) St. Robert Bellarmine: a heretical pope “deposes” himself.
I. The meaning of the passage
has been distorted by taking it out of its proper context.
The passage cited
is from a lengthy chapter Bellarmine devotes to refuting nine arguments
advocating the position that the pope is subject to secular power (emperor,
king, etc.) and an ecumenical council (the heresy of conciliarism).
The general
context, therefore, is a discussion of the power of the state vis-à-vis the
pope. Obviously, this has nothing whatsoever to do with issues the
sedevacantists have raised.
In its particular
context, the oft-cited quote is part of Bellarmine’s refutation of the
following argument:
Argument
7. Any person is permitted to
kill the pope if he is unjustly attacked by him. Therefore, even more so is it
permitted for kings or a council to depose the pope if he disturbs the state,
or if he tries to kill souls by his bad example.
Bellarmine answers:
I respond by
denying the second part of the argument. For to resist an attacker and defend
one’s self, no authority is needed, nor is it necessary that he who is attacked
be the judge and superior of him who attacks. Authority is required, however,
to judge and punish.
It is only then
that Bellarmine states:
Just as it is licit to resist the
Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks
souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I
say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding
the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish
him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior. (De Romano Pontifice. II.29.)
The quote, then,
is not a condemnation of
“sedevacantism.” Bellarmine, rather, is discussing the course of action which
may legitimately be taken against a pope who upsets the political order or
“kills souls by his bad example.” A king or a council may not depose such a pope, Bellarmine argues,
because they are not his superior — but they may resist him.
Nor does this
quote support those traditional Catholics who would recognize John Paul II as
pope but reject his Mass and ignore his laws.
First, the
passage justifies resistance by kings
and councils. It does not say that individual bishops, priests
and laymen on their own possess this right to resist the pope and ignore his
commands — still less that they can set up places of worship in opposition to
diocesan bishops a pope has lawfully appointed.
Second, note the
precise causes for resistance in the
case Bellarmine is discussing: disturbing the state or giving bad example. These, obviously, are not the same
thing as papal liturgical legislation, disciplinary laws or doctrinal
pronouncements which an individual might somehow deem harmful. Bellarmine would
hardly approve of disregarding, carte
blanche, for 30 years the directives of men one claims to recognize as
legitimate occupants of the papal office and the vicars of Christ on earth.
In sum, the
passage neither condemns sedevacantism nor supports traditionalists like the
adherents of the Society of St. Pius X.
In the chapter
which immediately follows the passage cited, St. Robert Bellarmine treats the
following question: “Whether a heretical pope can be deposed.” Note first, by
the way, that his question assumes a pope can
in fact become a heretic.
After a lengthy
discussion of various opinions theologians have given on this issue, Bellarmine
says:
The fifth opinion therefore is the
true one. A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically
to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and
punished by the Church. This is the
teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately
lose all jurisdiction. (De Romano
Pontifice. II.30. My emphasis)
Bellarmine then
cites passages from Cyprian, Driedonus and Melchior Cano in support of his position.
The basis for this teaching, he says finally, is that a manifest heretic is in no way a member of the Church —
neither of its soul nor its body, neither by an internal union nor an external
one.
Thus the writings
of Bellarmine, far from condemning the sedevacantist position, provide the
central principle upon which it is based — that a pope who becomes a manifest
heretic automatically loses his office and jurisdiction.
Nor is
Bellarmine’s teaching an isolated opinion. It is the teaching of all the
ancient Fathers, he assures us. And the principle he enunciated has been
reiterated by theologians and canonists right into the 20th century, including
commentators on the 1983 Code of Canon Law promulgated by John Paul II himself.
* * * * *
Those
who would recognize John Paul II as
pope while disregarding all his commands, therefore, can take no consolation
whatsoever in the passage from Bellarmine.
It is the
sedevacantist position, rather, that is supported by the teaching of the great
Robert Bellarmine: a legitimate pope must be obeyed; a heretical pope loses his
office.
(Sacerdotium 12, Summer 1994).