Introduction

This is a re-release of an article published on 29 July 2021 – one of the first articles published at The WM Review. It has now been revised and updated.

This is the second part of my study of Professor Roberto de Mattei’s treatment of Honorius, the so-called “heretic pope”. In his book, Love for the Papacy and Filial Resistance to the Pope in the History of the Church, Professor de Mattei presents the events in such a way as to bolster his own very particular “recognise and resist” view of the crisis in the Church. In certain respects, his narrative is closely aligned to those of anti-Catholics and anti-papalist.

In the first part, I discussed how theological principles regarding the crisis in the Church can be improperly shaped by interpretations of history – and began to demonstrate how this is the case for Pope Honorius.

I hope that this study will, in de Mattei’s own words in the same book, overcome “the many misunderstandings that often divide the forces of good people.”1

The claim to be analysed

Fr Ludwig Ott provides a compressed account of the standard narrative – unsullied by those of anti-Catholics and anti-papalists – of the “Honorius event”.

“There is no doubt but that Pope Honorius I (625-638) was personally orthodox.

“However, through his prohibition against speaking of two modes of operation [“two wills” in Christ] he unwittingly favoured the Monothelite error [“one will in Christ”].

“The Sixth General Council wrongly condemned him as a heretic. Pope Leo II (682-683) confirmed his anathematisation but not for the reason given by the Council.

“He did not reproach him with heresy, but with negligence in the suppression of the error.”2

The previous part addressed the historical account of Honorius’s letters and his subsequent condemnation. I did not claim to have proven that the letters were orthodox or that Honorius was not condemned as a heretic, but rather to have shown the uncertainty of the claims against him.

As de Mattei’s subsequent theological principles depend on his historical claims as their foundation, and as I have shown this foundation to be unsound, my study could have ended there.

But tribal myths do not die easily. With an alarming regularity, commentators and pundits resurrect the anti-Catholic myth of Honorius to support the very flawed “theology” of the so-called “recognise and resist” movement. This regularity gives an impetus to continue the critique, because responses to the crisis in the Church must be based on the truth and on sound doctrine, and not on anti-papal myths adopted in support of a priori conclusions.

In this part, we shall turn to another assertion, which de Mattei presents as certain.

He claims, with no indication that he is aware of any controversy:

“[Honorius’s letters] are undoubtedly magisterial acts, but in the non-infallible ordinary Magisterium there may be errors and even, in exceptional cases, heretical formulations.”3 [These and all subsequent emphasese are our own unless otherwise noted.]

This essay focuses on whether Pope Honorius’ letters can be called “magisterial acts”, and will show that, far from being “undoubtedly magisterial”, the nature of these letters is at best a debated subject.

As with the previous claims considered, this claim also sets de Mattei against two doctors of the Church and very many Catholic authorities – who have taught that they were private letters which did not engage his papal authority.

De Mattei also fails to provide authorities for his assertion of the “undoubtedly magisterial” quality of the letters. De Mattei has himself stated that he is an historian, rather than a theologian4 – and this makes it all the more important for him to thoroughly reference his material when he begins “doing theology” in this way. De Mattei does indeed provide authorities for uncontroversial points, and so his omission of evidence in support of controversial points such as this is noticeable. Without such authorities, he is acting as a theological authority in his own right – which is obviously not the case for a lay professor of history.

Is it pedantic to hold a popular column to such a level of rigour? No, because it is not treated as a mere column. It has been widely syndicated in several languages, and is given weight by de Mattei’s reputation. It is therefore appropriate to hold its debatable claims to this standard.

Further, as that which is asserted without evidence is refuted with a simple denial, we could again end this study here. Nonetheless, an exposition of this faulty theological method is essential.

Both the claim and de Mattei’s article as a whole exhibit “Döllingerist historical theology” at work.5 This Döllingerist approach claims to purify theology by subjecting it to the findings of history: in reality, it seeks to justify a priori principles (in this case, those regarding resistance to the pope) against the received theology of the Church.

Both the premise and the reality are unacceptable to Catholics. Uprooted from true theology, historical theology leads to irrelevant parallels and neglects true distinctions. This makes the precedents and principles it establishes liable to contradict received, traditional Catholic theology.

With that in order, let us consider de Mattei’s claim.

The Magisterium

It is unclear exactly what de Mattei means by “undoubtedly magisterial acts,” as he does not define his terms or refer us to any authorities.

For this reason we must ask: How should we define the term “magisterium”? What is it, and when is it exercised?

Fr Pietro Parente (consecrated bishop in 1955 and made a cardinal in 1967) defines the magisterium in his 1951 text as follows:

“The power conferred by Christ upon His Church and strengthened with the charism of infallibility, by which the teaching Church (Ecclesia docens) is constituted as the unique depository and authentic interpreter of divine revelation to be proposed authoritatively to men as the object of faith for their eternal salvation. […]

“The means, therefore, established by Christ, for the propagation of his teaching is not writing, but oral preaching, living magisterium, to which he assures his personal assistance to the end of the world.”6

Properly speaking, then, the magisterium is a permanent power to teach, which is exercised by the act of teaching, by those who have received it. The word can be used to refer both to those who have and exercise the power, and its exercise.

Those who have received this power are the Apostles and their successors (bishops with ordinary jurisdiction) – and not auxiliary bishops, priests or laymen.7 It is, perhaps, comparable to the Roman concept of imperium, the supreme power of command conferred upon certain magistrates.

By calling Honorius’s letters “magisterial,” de Mattei implies that they are exercises of this power, and as such public acts.8 We are therefore to assume that Honorius exercised his teaching authority, as the successor of St Peter and teacher of the universal Church, even if not at its highest level.

But even this idea contradicts the very many authorities, who hold the letters to be private, and not engaging his papal authority at all. De Mattei does not acknowledge this opinion, nor does explain his reasons for rejecting what is taught even by two Doctors of the Church.

In order to address the letters, we must consider when the magisterium is exercised, and when the pope acts as the pope, as opposed to as a private individual.

Subscribe now

When does the pope act as pope?

Theologians differ in their terminology regarding the official teaching acts of the Pope, but their distinctions between public and private acts are clear.

For example is Cardinal Louis Billot SJ, one of the most important theologians of the twentieth century,9 who explains this idea as follows:

“It is important to know that we can speak of the pope in three different ways.

“Firstly, as a private person, or as a theologian among others, in which case he can err in matters of faith and morals, just like anyone else: this is a fact that cannot be disputed.”10

When acting as a private person, his actions are no more magisterial than a sovereign’s private actions are monarchical. Billot points to examples such as Benedict XIV’s work as a private theologian on the canonization of saints as an example of this (although not as an example of a Pope erring as a private person).

He continues:

“Secondly, the pope may be considered as pope, but not as using the fullness of his apostolic power to define something that the whole church should hold.”11

Billot gives the examples of acts that either do not concern the universal Church, or do not constitute a “definition.” But just as there are no secret or private truths of the Catholic faith, there can be no secret or private acts of the magisterium: there is an opposition between the very categories of secrest/private and magisterial. That which truly is secret or private is, by that fact, not magisterial.

Billot continues:

“Thirdly, the pope can be seen as ‘discharging his office as pastor and doctor of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals as to be held by the whole church.”12

The essence of this third way of acting is the definition (which is not necessarily the same thing as a solemn definition) – the settling of a question for good.

With Billot’s division, we have three ways in which the pope can act.

1. A private person (even if this exercise is public, but the act of a private teacher), who can err.

2. A public teacher, exercising his office by teaching the whole Church or some part of her, but not defining anything.

3. A public teacher, teaching definitively, whether that be explicitly addressed to the universal Church or not.

These general distinctions are clear, even if there are some grey areas. The matter is illuminated further by Fr Domenico Palmieri SJ, who wrote the following:

“[I]t is manifest that the Roman Pontiff can teach something without defining ex cathedra. For upon becoming Pontiff he does not lose the qualities common to all men; the exercise of the authority to teach, moreover, can be manifold, while the full exercise of supreme power belongs freely to him who possesses it. It can also be discerned when the Roman Pontiff is not speaking ex cathedra: for when he teaches something but does not intend to impose an obligation to believe it as something to be held by the universal Church – that is, he does not signify that it is his will – then he is not said to be speaking ex cathedra, even if he is speaking of doctrine concerning faith or morals.

“In such a case it is not accurate to say that he speaks as a private teacher (doctor privatus); for although he does not speak from the fullness of his authority, he does speak with authority. Wherefore a Roman Pontiff speaking in this manner is not to be relegated to the rank of any private doctor possessing no authority.”13

We see here that Fr Palmieri also identifies an opposition between that which is private and that which is authoritative or magisterial.

The issue is also illustrated in the American Ecclesiastical Review’s answer to the question of whether a pope could teach heresy.

First, it was stated that the question was “altogether futile” and hypothetical, as “history has hitherto furnished no example of such an occurrence.”14

But the answer continues:

“… The admission that the Pope, whilst personally peccable, yet in his office as supreme teacher and moderator of the Church is infallible, covers the whole case; nor is there any more difficulty here than there is in distinguishing between the official acts of a sovereign and his private deeds, not as a private man but as sovereign.”15

We could also summarise it like this:

• “Private acts” are those which do not engage the pope’s authority as pope. “Private” does not mean “secret,” as even the pope’s acts as a private teacher can be public in a certain sense – e.g. as the author of a theological text, intending to exclude his papal authority.

• The pope acts as pope, and thus as a public teacher, when he exercises his magisterium, to whatever degree. These acts are necessarily magisterial.

• Neither his public acts as pope, nor his magisterium, are limited to solemn judgements or to definitions (it is also not clear that definitions are necessarily solemn judgments).16

While Billot’s division may not be the only legitimate one, the differences are concerned with the categorisation of magisterial acts and the nature of the assent which they are owed. The theologians distinguish clearly between the pope acting publicly and privately – as taught, for example, by Salaverri,17 Berry18 and others.

For example, Cardinal Franzelin quotes Melchior Cano in the following context:

“[The popes] often respond to private questions of this or that bishop, by explicating [their] opinion concerning the matters proposed to them, [and] not by imposing a judgment in which they mean the faithful to be obliged to belief.”19

Franzelin even cites Honorius’s letters as an example of such private actions. Of course, such private questions may also receive public, magisterial answers from the pope as pope: but whether this occurs will turn on the facts.

Does de Mattei accept a general division like this?

Elsewhere in his anthology of articles on resisting the Roman Pontiff, de Mattei makes these surprising claims – which run directly contrary to the theologians whom we have just cited:

“[…] the expression “private doctor” does not refer to the Supreme Pontiff’s acts of a private nature, but to his “public” function as “supreme pastor of the Church.”20

He clarifies:

“[…] at the First Vatican Council, Monsignor Vincenzo Gasser (1809–1879), representative of the Deputation of the Faith […], stated precisely that the pope is considered a “public person” only if he is speaking ex cathedra, with the intention of binding the Church to his teaching.”21 [Our emphasis]

In other words, he is claiming that ex cathedra statements – which he considers narrowly as solemn judgements – are the only occasions in which the pope is a public person. Encyclicals, motu proprios, apostolic exhortations: de Mattei claims that these are all the works of the pope as a private doctor, and as such may include heresy. It is difficult to express how deleterious this is for Catholic theology.

For his first claim, de Mattei cites an Italian work by Umberto Betti on the First Vatican Council. Betti (1922-2009) was involved in the preparation of Vatican II, contributed to Dei verbum and Lumen gentium, and was made a cardinal by Benedict XVI. I have not been able to locate this text.

However for the second claim, the paraphrase of Mgr Gasser at Vatican I is grievously misleading. This, below, is the text, originally in Latin, which de Mattei gives in the footnote to claim that “the pope is considered a “public person” only if he is speaking ex cathedra”:

“[…] The supreme Pontiff speaks ‘ex cathedra,’ not, first of all, when he decrees something as a private teacher, nor only as the bishop and ordinary of a particular See and province, but when he teaches as exercising his office as supreme pastor and teacher of all Christians.”22

As is clear, text in no way whatsoever even suggests that the pope is only a public person “if he is speaking ex cathedra.” It simply asserts that he does not speak ex cathedra when acting as a private teacher or as the teacher of particular churches. Considerably more evidence would be needed to prove de Mattei’s interpretation.

To confuse this as meaning what de Mattei says defies belief, indicating either an inability to reason. It is quite shocking for this Latin text to be cited, which most cannot understand or verify, in support of such a point.

Further, if even encyclicals are the acts of a “private” teacher, then the word “private” has no meaning. If the pope’s ordinary magisterium is reduced to that of a private teacher, then we may take or leave his “opinions” as we judge them to be true. So much for what Pius XII said of “the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: ‘He who heareth you, heareth me.’”23 This also has grave consequences for the preaching of the magisterium as the “proximate rule of faith”.

For these reasons, de Mattei’s account is to be rejected.

Any remaining ambiguities only prove the rule

The divisions drawn from Billot and others make it possible to categorise most of the pope’s acts, and so determine whether they are magisterial or not.

Nonetheless, there may be some acts about which it is harder to say that they are public or private, or definitive or otherwise. This difficulty may only increase with the lapse of centuries.

However, this does not undermine the basic divisions. Billot addresses uncertainly defined points, “which only probably belong to the definite truths.”24 Such cases, he says, are subject to “the general principle, that a doubtful obligation is void precisely insofar as it is doubtful.”25 Uncertainly defined points are not to be treated as undoubtedly defined; and uncertainly magisterial acts are not to be treated as undoubtedly magisterial.

As noted, the various divisions all assume the existence of private acts, but are mainly concerned with categorising the public acts of the magisterium. They hold that the faithful are bound to give (at least) a firm, true and internal assent to all exercises of the papal magisterium. This is a truly standard doctrine taught by magisterium itself,26 canon law27 and is the very common teaching of theologians.28

In this sense, whether a true teaching act is ex cathedra, a definition or something else is an interesting question in itself, but (in some ways) a moot point – especially for laymen and non-theologians. We can leave further categorisations to theologians and confessors, becuase we are required to assent to all that we are clearly taught by the papal magisterium. There is no non-obligatory magisterium, at least with reference to clear papal teaching: all such teaching requires religious assent and a respectful silence.

This is because the primary fact, which all these theologians seek to explain, is this: Our Lord has given us a safe, simple rule of faith – the preaching of the living and perpetual magisterium. Van Noort addresses this clearly:

“The Church’s preaching is a rule of faith which is nicely accommodated to people’s needs. For:

“(a) it is an easy rule, one that can be observed by all alike, even the uneducated and unlettered. What could be easier than to give ear to a magisterium that is always at hand and always preaching?

“(b) It is a safe rule, for the Church’s teaching office is infallible in safeguarding and presenting Christ’s doctrine.

“(c) It is a living rule, in accordance with which it is possible in any age to explain the meaning of doctrines and to put an end to controversies.”29

No doubt Van Noort’s emphasis on easiness and safety may be surprising to many in our day. But this is the teaching of the Church, and we are obliged to accept it – and to judge our current situation in light of it.

Also, as is clear, this is “rule of faith” is necessarily public, such that anything which is private or secret cannot possibly be a part of it.

Having now established all our principles, let us turn to Pope Honorius.

Subscribe now

What actually happened with Honorius’s Letters

Pope Honorius’ letters were addressed to Sergius alone. This does not necessarily mean that they are not magisterial: in recent times, papal addresses to small groups (e.g. midwives, newlyweds) were sometimes promulgated to the whole Church through inclusion in the Acta Apostolica Sedis.30

As such, Berry and others teach that a private letter like this could only really be considered magisterial if it were intended for the universal Church, notwithstanding the immediate person to whom it is addressed. How would we know if it were so intended? In his discussion of ex cathedra pronouncements, Berry quotes Cardinal Mazzella:

“‘[…] it should be noted for whom, rather than to whom the Pope speaks. [It may be] evident from the nature of the matter treated, from the manner of treatment, or from any other circumstance, that he speaks for all […]’”31

Does this apply to Honorius’s letters?

De Mattei could have cited the arguments of Fr Hartmann Grisar SJ, whom he cites elsewhere:

“A private person is not consulted in the way that Sergius consulted Honorius; nor does he write letters like those that Honorius sent to Sergius, and, with similar force of expression, to [others], and clearly with the purpose that they should be a standard for the whole church.”32

Fr Emile Amann, another of de Mattei’s sources, argues that a request from the Patriarch of Constantinople for the highest authority to settle a controversy cannot be reduced to private letters between two individuals.33 He argues that the letters purport to teach and impose this teaching, and as such are magisterial acts.

Bishop Hefele – another of his sources – also claims that these letters were implicitly intended to teach the whole Church.34

On the one hand, de Mattei’s source Dom Chapman holds that “Honorius addresses Sergius alone and not the whole Church,” and that the letter had “less publicity than a modern Encyclical” and “does not define or condemn [or] bind the Church.”35 Nonetheless – somewhat contradictorily – he also says that “the letter cannot be called a private one, for it is an official reply to a formal consultation.”36

But although Pope Honorius may have been consulted as a public person, it was his prerogative to decide how to reply; and a reply with private letters, no matter how peremptory their tone, seems to preclude his response being public act of authority.

Authorities who held them to be private letters

Further, against the sources mentioned, and de Mattei’s uncited claim, most authorities believe that Honorius’s letters were private, and as such did not engage his papal authority. For example:

St Robert Bellarmine – Doctor of the Church – says that “all that Honorius is accused of [is] that he fostered heresy in private letters.”37 He does not hold him to have expressed or taught heresy, nor even to have fostered it as accused. In fact, he praises him for the prudence in advising silence, “For then it was the beginning of this heresy, and nothing on these terms was yet defined by the Church.”38

St Alphonsus Liguori – another Doctor of the Church – writes in The History of Heresies that “he only wrote them as a private doctor, and in no wise stained the purity of the faith of the Apostolic See” and also, “there is no open heresy in the private letter of Honorius to Sergius.”39

Cardinal Franzelin is so clear on the private nature of Honorius’s letters that he uses them as an example of a pope acting as a private person.40

Cardinal Hergenröther – the great historian who refuted the historical theology of the excommunicate Döllinger in his work Anti-Janus – cites another writer (Habert) approvingly, saying that “the letters of Honorius were private letters.”41

Berry states that the letters were “not issued for the universal Church.”42 They were “private letters” and were “merely a matter of personal advice requested by Sergius.”43 “But,” he observes, “even as such they contain no error of doctrine”44 – Honorius fault, after all, being a failure to condemn, rather than the teaching of error.

However, it seems that Honorius’ letters were so private as to be actually unknown until they were produced at the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

Cardinal Manning, in Petri Privilegium, quotes another bishop, saying that the letters “were not published, even in the East, until several years later,” and Sergius had managed to keep his letter concealed for eight years, even from the Emperor – and this was “probably because its contents, if published, would not have suited his wily purpose of secretly introducing, under another form, the Eutychian heresy.”45 Manning concludes that “his letters were not addressed to a general council of the whole Church and were rather private, than public and official.”46

Dom Prosper Guéranger – whom de Mattei calls a “great theologian of history”47 – describes the events between Honorius’s death and his condemnation, referring to the various saints and prelates that appealed to Rome for aid against the monothelitist heresy. He writes:

“In all these letters [engaging in the Monothelite controversy after Honorius’s death], there is not the slightest mention of Honorius, nor of his having forbidden reference to one will, or of two wills. Everywhere the same confidence in the unbreakable fidelity of the See of Rome to the true faith, everywhere the conviction that this See has not yet pronounced on the question.”48

What can we conclude from this apparent ignorance of Honorius’s letters, Guéranger asks?

“Honorius’s letter to Sergius remained unknown in the Church in its capacity as a private writing; or that if it was known to a certain extent, no one recognized in this document the characteristics of an apostolic judgment. [It] was not addressed by him to the Church [and that] it never had any other character than that of a private writing.”49

He concludes that “those conditions which would take the letter out of the character of a private writing and elevate it to the importance of a general law […] are totally lacking here.”50

Fr Paul Bottalla SJ – the author of an important work on Honorius – summarises these arguments decisively:

“[The letters] were not intended for the instruction of the whole Church. Far from this, they were not even destined for circulation among all the Bishops of either East or West; still less were the Bishops required to sign them. […]

“No record whatever exists from which we learn that the letters of Honorius were communicated to the Oriental Bishops. Sergius, who was principally interested in the matter, did not put them in circulation, nor did he even mention them in the Ecthesis, which was his own composition.”51

Can private letters, which were in fact unknown, really be called “magisterial” at all?

Further, even if we were to believe them to be magisterial, can documents whose very status is so debated be called “undoubtedly magisterial”?

Concluding reflections

This present essay is a critique of historical theology, rather than the building of theories of my own. It is not necessary to prove that Honorius’ letters were private in order to establish the point in question – that they are not “undoubtedly magisterial” acts, and so provide no basis for the “recognise and resist theology.” Given the logic of de Mattei’s case, which depends necessarily on his premises being certain, all that I need to do is establish uncertainty on this point.

Why is this question important? The idea that these letters were “undoubtedly magisterial” is itself harmful to Catholic doctrine, as are the further theories derived from this claim. This historical-theological approach is used to bolster a particular interpretation of our crisis which is incompatible with the received theological tradition.

We have already seen Billot’s truism, that “a doubtful obligation is void precisely insofar as it is doubtful.”52 “Uncertainly magisterial” acts are not to be treated as “undoubtedly magisterial.”

The question, therefore, turns on the facts. Can private letters, unknown to most bishops at the time, addressed to a single Patriarch, not published in a form indicating a magisterial character, which were concealed for years, and which weighty authorities from the time and since have treated as mere private letters – can they really be called “undoubtedly magisterial acts”?

It is very difficult to see in what sense they could be called magisterial, public or official teaching.

I do not believe that I can settle this question – although to some extent, to ask it is to answer it. Given the certainly private aspects of the letters, and the debate around their actual status, we cannot conclude that are undoubtedly public or magisterial teaching in the sense defined above.

However, it is a serious mistake to compare this to our present situation. Amoris Laetitia, Fratelli Tutti and various documents of Vatican II cannot be compared to Honorius’s private letters. Amoris Laetitia, for example, was addressed universally, “to bishops, priests and deacons, consecrated persons, Christian married couples and all the lay faithful.”53

Such documents have been issued universally, and are held by all to be official.

The idea that the presence of dangerous errors within them automatically reduces these official documents to the level of private acts is not tenable. These documents truly are “undoubtedly ‘magisterial’ acts” of the so-called conciliar church – which, as proved elsewhere, cannot be the Catholic Church.

Thus, even if Honorius’s private letters did contain some error or heresy, the situation is completely different. They do not provide any precedent for the apparent spectacle of a heretical magisterium, or for the scandalous post-conciliar “pontificates”. False parallels cannot form the basis for us all “uniting around tradition,” as de Mattei says he desires; nor can they be a theoretical basis to assist us at this most dreadful hour of history.

We must unite around the truth, both in fact and in principle.

Post-script: The next stage of analysis

We have now seen that the best authorities hold Honorius’s letters to have been orthodox in themselves, but also private – and thus not exercises of the magisterium.

We have seen that de Mattei widens the boundaries of the magisterium to include even secret, private acts – and that elsewhere he constricts the boundaries of public acts to ex cathedra statements alone. These dubious boundaries allow him to suggest that the magisterium has previously taught dangerous errors and heresy with public acts.

We have seen that any historical parallels here with our crisis are unsound, and these letters have no points of comparison with the “undoubtedly ‘magisterial’ acts” of the conciliar church.

However, conclusions can be true, even if the premises used to defend them on occasion are false. What are we to make of de Mattei’s theological principle, that the “non-infallible ordinary Magisterium” can contain errors and even heresy?

Does it stand up to scrutiny? Or is it more historical theology, doing violence to received Catholic doctrine?

2026 Note

These questions were addressed in the subject of the next two parts of this study. These next two parts argued for the theory of “infallible safety” – namely that acts of the magisterium could not contain so-called “dangerous error”, and held Professor de Mattei to task for failing to adopt this theory himself.

I have since revised my views on this theory, which is why Parts IIIa and IIIb have been unavailable for so long. I hope to find time to revise them in due course.

My current thoughts on this theory may be found, in part, here, and here:

• Infallible Safety? – What Cardinal Franzelin actually taught

HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!

As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.

Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.

A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.

You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.

And you can visit The WM Review Shop for our ‘Lovely Mugs’ and more.

(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)

Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!

Subscribe now

Donate

Lovely Mugs

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

Read Next:

Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:

• Twitter (The WM Review)

• The Father Coleridge Reader

• YouTube

• Telegram

Editor’s Notes

The following text is taken from Fr Francisco Suárez SJ’s Defensio catholicae fidei contra anglicanae sectae errores (“Defence of the Catholic Faith Against the Errors of the Anglican Sect”). This work was written in response to King James I of England, who had Suárez’s work burnt and outlawed in his realm.

We are publishing it today as part of our ongoing investigation into the sources cited by apologists of the “recognise and resist movement.”

Note: The Latin text of Suárez’s Defensio Fidei has been translated into English with the assistance of Claude Opus 4.6, with each line subsequently checked against the original by a human.

Because of this base translation, Substack’s built-in AI-detector Pangram is suggesting a score of “22% AI”. The score drops to “0%” when Suárez’s text is removed. The editorial commentary was written entirely by myself.

For several weeks, we have been publishing texts taken from Fr Domenico Palmieri SJ’s Treatise on the Roman Pontiff, due to his being cited as an authority for this position. In the course of this series, we have seen that Fr Palmieri…

• Explicitly condemns those “who think that they can adhere to the Roman See and the Roman Church while resisting the Pontiff”

• Holds that a Pope who obstinately falls into heresy is “stripped of jurisdiction by God.”

• Teaches that the correct response to what is taught by the “merely authentic” (and non-infallible) magisterium of the Holy See is both “religious assent” and “a respectful silence” – in that “he is not to be publicly contradicted, nor is the opposite doctrine to be defended.”

We will soon be providing a full translation of the text in which he refers to “resisting the Pope”, in which we will see that he is discussing resistance to matters other than teaching and governance, and as such cannot be cited as an authority for the “recognise and resist” movement. Before we provide this text, it seems helpful to ensure that the sources which Fr Palmieri himself cites are available for context.

Those sources are St Robert Bellarmine, and Fr Francisco Suárez SJ. We have already examined Bellarmine’s “resistance quotes”, and demonstrated – by the context both of his own work, and the authorities whom he cites (Cardinals Cajetan and Torquemada) – that the Doctor of the Church’s comments deal with a set of “papal crimes” that have nothing to do with the teaching of heresy or condemned errors, or the promulgation of harmful universal disciplinary laws.

What can be resisted?

This is made all the more clear when we consult Cardinals Cajetan and Torquemada themselves, who give lists such as the following:

• Tyrannical rule

• Simony

• Squandering the wealth of the Church for personal gain

• Deposing all bishops

• General corruption and scandal

• Ignoring correction

• Exceeding his authority

Nor can one make an a fortiori argument, by suggesting that the legitimacy of resistance to such lesser ways of “destroying the Church” legitimises resistance to the greater way of heresy, and so on.

This is because these theologians specifically exclude heresy from such treatments – with Torquemada and St Robert Bellarmine teaching that a heretic pope is ipso facto deposed, and Cajetan teaching in one place that such a one should be deposed, and in another that he is already deposed. Cajetan explicitly distinguishes heresy from the other “destructive” actions mentioned above.1

Give a gift subscription

The text from Fr Palmieri

The text cited from Fr Palmieri cites the passages from Cajetan just mentioned, indicating that he is just as inadmissible as an authority for the “recognise and resist” movement. However, Fr Palmieri also cites Suárez, and so in the interests of completeness – an interest noticeably absent in those “quote-mining” from such authors – we are publishing Suárez’s chapter in full.

We can also note that Suárez himself also cites the sections from Cajetan which we have already discussed. His comments closely follow Cajetan’s, including those about the importance of prayer. But also as with Cajetan and the others mentioned, Suárez gives a set of examples to indicate what he has in mind when discussing “resistance” to a Pope abusing his office – and these examples do not refer to the exercise of his teaching or governing power:

“Accordingly, if the Pontiff inflicts bodily force through aggression or an unjust war, he may be resisted by a similar action in defence, but not for the purpose of attack. If, however, the violence were spiritual – commanding iniquity, or profaning sacred things, or destroying them – he may be resisted in a proportionate manner by taking measures to prevent such things from being carried out. These cases, however, are rare, and for such liberty to be taken, the facts must be utterly evident.”

There are a few points to note here.

Distinction between commands and laws

The distinction between commands and laws is crucial – it is only by conflating the two that “recognise and resist” movement can make use of such texts.

Commands are exercises of dominative power, and the Roman Pontiffs’ commands are not considered to be infallible. Laws, by contrast, are exercises of legislative power, and it is this exercise of jurisdiction that the Church teaches is “infallibly safe” (at least when universal).

As such, comments about resisting commands cannot be blithely applied to the idea of resisting universal laws.

What is a proportionate manner of resistance?

Suárez also gives examples of what it means for the Pope to be “resisted in a proportionate manner”.

The short text above refers to “taking measures to prevent such things from being carried out”; elsewhere in the text, he speaks of a “just defence” and repelling “force with force”. He also discusses the possibility of a “fraternal correction” of the Pope.

If, for the sake of argument, we were to consider how these measures might work in the post-Vatican II era, we might consider printers refusing to produce Novus Ordo liturgical books, seminaries refusing to destroy their libraries, or works such as Abbé de Nantes Books of Accusation (although perhaps written with a more deferential tone, if they are considered to be addressed to a legitimate Pontiff).

But what Suárez discusses has nothing to do with rejecting the authoritative teaching and laws of the (alleged) Supreme Pontiff, with establishing publications in opposition to them claiming to be that of the remnant faithful, or with the establishment of parallel apostolates without regard for his jurisdiction (let alone in opposition to him).

However, that which would legitimise such actions may be found in Suárez's comments about a heretical Pope.

That which some want to resist should actually point to loss of office

He writes:

“[B]ecause heresy spreads like a cancer and destroys the foundation of the Church, he also established a law by the force of which the Pope would fall from his dignity if he were a heretic, giving the Church also the capacity to take cognisance of such a crime and to pronounce a sentence declaring it, and the divine deposition that follows from it.”

That which the “recognise and resist” movement wishes to “resist” actually points towards a deposition, whether this deposition be understood to have taken place ipso facto upon the manifestation of heresy (whether through actions, or through the intervention of a Council), or by the positive action of the Church.

The permitted response to heresy and properly doctrinal problems is seeking to have the man deposed, not merely rejecting his teaching and laws, and establishing parallel ministries. If the “recognise and resist” advocates wished to be consistent with their principles, and faithful to those whom they cite, they would be working for a deposition of those who need to be resisted on doctrinal grounds.

Note on the text

The chapter itself is about the Roman Pontiff’s “exemption”. Throughout the work, exemptio denotes the complete non-subjection of the Supreme Pontiff to any jurisdiction other than that of Christ himself – whether the jurisdiction in question be secular or ecclesiastical, coercive or judicial. In Suárez’s argument it is a constitutional immunity rooted in the divine right attaching to the Petrine office. The purpose of the chapter is to present and answer objections to this “exemption.”

While the chapter is interesting, the relevant sections are found at the end. Fr Palmieri gives the reference “Book IV, Chapter VI, n. 16.” In the edition consulted, Ch. VI ends at n. 15, but the texts quoted by Fr Palmieri are present under n. 14 – indicating that the discrepancy is one of formatting and editions, or even a mere typo.

S.D.Wr.

Defensio Fidei Catholicæ et Apostolicæ
Adversus Anglicanæ Sectæ Errores

Fr Francisco Suárez SJ

Neapoli ex typis Fibrenianis, MDCCCLXXII

Liber Quartus, Ch. 6.

Available at Archive.org

The following text is for WM+ members.

The WM Review is free for readers. This is because we believe these ideas must reach as many people as possible.

However, we also provide WM+ articles – additional material for those who choose to support this work financially.

This helps us continue producing serious Catholic research, while ensuring that the main body of material remains accessible for all.

Read more

Editors’ Notes

This is the ninth part of a serialisation of Orestes’ Brownson’s engagement with “Eastern Orthodoxy.”

It was originally published in two articles.

Article I

The background of this engagement – including that of the ex-Catholic author Abbé Vladimir (René-François) Guettée and his book The Schismatic Papacy – can be found in the first part. Here are the parts we have seen so far:

1. Eastern Orthodoxy? ‘The Schismatic Papacy’ and Guettée’s absurd imposture

2. Eastern Orthodoxy? St Cyprian is not a witness for schism

3. Eastern Orthodoxy? Schism defended with false history

Those parts made up one article; Brownson then proceeded to a second, much longer article. As such, this sixth part is also the ninth part of the second article – which systematically dismantles Guettée’s attempted appeal to the Councils:

Article II

4. Eastern Orthodox? Why the sixth canon of Nicæa isn’t an argument

5. Eastern Orthodoxy? Rome did not have primacy merely for being the capital city

6. Eastern Orthodoxy? No, Pope Leo the Great is not a witness against papal primacy

7. Eastern Orthodoxy? ‘Orthodox proofs’ from Chalcedon undermine their own case

8. Eastern Orthodoxy? St Gregory the Great and the ‘Universal Bishop’ title

9. Eastern Orthodoxy? Scraping the barrel with irrelevant authorities

Why are we publishing this?

For more on why we might bother republishing a nineteenth century review of a nineteenth century book, see the first part. In short, Guettée’s book continues to bring the ill-informed into the Photian schism, and so Browson’s review and refutation continues to be of enduring importance.

As the contemporary “Orthodox” are publishing such works and encouraging Roman Catholics to enter into schism and heresy, they surely cannot complain about us publishing Brownson’s piece in response. We do so in good will, with the hope that they will instead return to the Church of Christ – outside of which there is absolutely no salvation whatsoever.

Subscribe now

Scraping the Barrel with irrelevant authorities

Guettée’s ‘The Schismatic Papacy,’ Part 2.1

Orestes Brownson
Originally published as “Guetté’s Papacy Schismatic’1
From The Catholic World, 1867
Published in The Works of Orestes A. Brownson, Vol. VIII
Thorndike Nourse, Deroit, 1884. pp 491-500
Headings and some line breaks added by The WM Review

Scraping the barrel

The author is unhappy in his witnesses, and they are all too decidedly Roman to testify otherwise than against him. He cites other eminent fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries, but he raises no new questions, and makes no points in his favor not already met and disposed of; and we may, therefore, pass over what he adduces, since, as we continue to remind our readers, we are not adducing our proofs of the papal authority, but refuting his arguments or pretended arguments against it.

In his fifth division, chapter, or section, the author examines “the authority of the bishop of Rome in the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries.” We have anticipated him in regard to St. Gregory the Great, the most prominent papal figure in these centuries, and shown that this great pontiff and doctor, who justly ranks along with St. Leo, offers no testimony in support of the author’s vain attempt to prove the papacy schismatic.

We have read this section of his book with care, but we find that, while he shows very clearly that the Roman pontiff, to save the faith and the constitution and canons of the church from the attacks of the heretics and schismatics of the East, was obliged to intervene with his supreme authority in the affairs of the Eastern churches more frequently than in earlier ages, he brings forward nothing different from what has already been refuted to prove that they did not possess the authority which they exercised by divine right.

We may say, then, that the author has totally failed to establish his first conclusion, that “the bishop of Rome did not for eight centuries possess the sovereignty of divine right which he has since sought to exercise.” The facts he adduces prove that during those centuries the popes did exercise all the authority they have as supreme pontiffs since exercised, and that they professed to exercise it by divine right, and without any contradiction by the universal church.

No doubt the author has adduced instances in which general councils have recognized it, and made it the basis of their action; but this does not prove that the papal authority was conferred by the church, and was held only by ecclesiastical right. No doubt the civil authority on more than one occasion recognized it and made it the law of the empire, but this does not prove that it was held as a grant of the emperor, but the reverse rather.

The author, then, has not refuted the argument from possession, turned the presumption against the papacy, or proved that he and his friends the non-united Greeks are not decidedly schismatics in resisting the Council of Florence, in which both the East and West were represented and united.

Guettée’s second contention: That papal claims caused the schism

The author, having failed to establish his first conclusion, notwithstanding his misquotations, mistranslations, and misrepresentations of facts, which are numerous and barefaced enough to excite the envy of his editor, the Protestant Episcopal Bishop of Western New York, cannot prove his second conclusion, namely: The pretension of the bishops of Rome to the sovereignty of divine right over the whole church was the cause of the division.

This depends on the first, and falls with it; for it is necessary to deny the divine authority of the pope to govern the whole church before his assumption and exercise of that authority can be held to be a usurpation, and the cause of the divisions which result from resistance to it. Resistance otherwise is illegal, unauthorized, and conclusive evidence of schism, or, rather, is undeniably itself schism.

The resistance on the part of the Eastern bishops and prelates to the Roman pontiff in the exercise of his legitimate authority was schism, as much so as an armed insurrection against the political sovereign is rebellion, and the rebels cannot allege that the sovereign in the exercise of his legitimate authority is the cause of their rebellion, and hold him responsible for it.

Subscribe now

The burden of proof is on the schismatics, not Catholics

The author, forgetting that the pope is in possession, and that throughout the presumption is in favor of his authority, argues as if the presumption was on the other side, and the onus probandi was on us.

He, therefore, concludes that every exercise of papal jurisdiction beyond the patriarchate of the West is a usurpation, and resistance to it justifiable, unless we are able to prove the contrary. We deny it, and maintain that it is for him to prove that jurisdiction is usurped, and not held by divine right. The laboring oar is in his hands. It is always for those who resist authority to justify their resistance.

The author can justify his resistance to papal authority only by producing some law of God or some canon of the universal church that restricts the jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff to the Western patriarchate, and forbids him to exercise jurisdiction over the whole church. A law or edict to that effect of the empire or canon of the Eastern churches alone, could it be produced, would not avail him; it must be a decision of the universal church, even according to his own doctrine. He alleges no such act or canon, and can allege none, for all the acts or canons of the universal church bearing on the question, unhappily for him, are the other way.

The failure to produce relevant and authoritative canons

The author adduces the third canon of the second general council, and the twenty-eighth of the fourth, but these canons, having never been assented to by the West, are without the authority of the universal church. And, besides, they do not distinctly deny the supreme authority of the bishop of Rome, and only profess to confer the first rank and authority after the Roman pontiff on the bishop of Constantinople.

It is a strong presumption against the author that he does not even allege any law or canon of the universal church which the popes have violated, and his charge against them is that of presenting themselves as defenders of the canons against innovation, as in the refusal of St. Leo to accept the twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon.

But the author, with his usual facility, refutes himself, and shows that it was not the pretension of the bishops of Rome, but the pretensions of the bishop of Constantinople and of the secular government that caused the division. We have seen that the third canon of the second general council, and the twenty-eighth of the fourth, which was annulled by St. Leo, were in violation of the canons, but were prompted by the ambition of the bishop of Constantinople and the secular authority.

“We can perceive,” says the author, p. 100…

“… in the struggles between the bishops of Rome and Constantinople, respecting the twenty-eighth canon of the council of Chalcedon, the origin of the dissensions which afterward led to an entire rupture.”

The real cause of the rupture

And why did these dissensions lead to an entire rupture? Certainly because the same parties continued to maintain the same claims in relation to each other. The ground of the dissension remained always the same.

The question, then, is, which party in the beginning was in the right, and which was in the wrong? “In principle,” says the author on the same page, “St. Leo was right;” that is, right in defending the canons of the holy fathers and the decrees of the venerable Council of Nicæa against their violation and subversion by the innovations of Constantinople and Chalcedon. St. Leo, the author himself says, presented himself as the defender of antiquity and the canons of Nicæa; he must, then, have been right not only in principle, but in fact.

The real cause of the division was not the pretension of the bishops of Rome to an authority which they did not possess, but their refusal to assent to the violent and shameless usurpations of Constantinople. The attitude of the popes and the ground on which they resisted from first to last were distinctly taken by St. Leo in his letter to the emperor, Marcian, already cited:

“Privilegia ecclesiarum, sanctorum Patrum canonibus instituta et venerabilis Nicænæ synodi fixa decretis, nulla possunt improbitate convelli, nulla mutari novitate.”2

But St. Leo “could not deny,” says the author, “that one general council had the same rights as another that had preceded it.” But, even if so, none of the innovations proposed by the East and opposed by the bishops of Rome have ever had the authority of a general council. There is and can be, even according to the author and his schismatic Greek friends, no general council without the bishop of Rome; and the canons on which the author relies were from the first resisted by the Roman pontiff, and, therefore, could not override or abrogate the decrees of the Council of Nicæa.

HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!

As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.

Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.

A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.

You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.

(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)

Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!

Subscribe now

Donate

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

If you enjoyed this article, then why not get it in mug form?

Eastern 'Orthodoxy' Mug

(Now, now, our Eastern “Orthodox” friends, don’t get too stressed. It’s all in good humour. We wish you well, and pray for your good.)

Read Next:

Orestes Brownson’s review of Abbé Guettée’s The Papacy Schismatic:

1. Eastern Orthodoxy? ‘The Schismatic Papacy’ and Guettée’s absurd imposture

2. Eastern Orthodoxy? St Cyprian is not a witness for schism

3. Eastern Orthodoxy? Schism defended with false history

Article II

4. Eastern Orthodox? Why the sixth canon of Nicæa isn’t an argument

5. Eastern Orthodoxy? Rome did not have primacy merely for being the capital city

6. Eastern Orthodoxy? No, Pope Leo the Great is not a witness against papal primacy

7. Eastern Orthodoxy? ‘Orthodox proofs’ from Chalcedon undermine their own case

8. Eastern Orthodoxy? St Gregory the Great and the ‘Universal Bishop’ title

9. Eastern Orthodoxy? Scraping the barrel with irrelevant authorities

Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:

• Twitter (The WM Review)

• Father Coleridge Reader

• YouTube

• Telegram

Stabat Mater Press just released a new translation of Fr. Théotime de Saint-Just’s classic work, The Social Kingship of Christ According to Cardinal Pie.

This book is a synthesis of Cardinal Pie’s writings, sermons, and addresses on the topic. Fr Théotime provides an extensive selection of long extracts (along with commentary), which results in a full exposition of the doctrine or Christ’s Social Kingship.

I had the honour of providing the foreword for this handsome new edition, available in both hardback and paperback.

The foreword, which is 25 pages long, situates Fr. Théotime’s work in our own ecclesiastical crisis – in which the doctrine of Christ’s Kingship has been so transformed as to constitute a denial of the original teaching.

It sets out why Vatican II’s doctrine of religious liberty is central to this transformation, how it has been interpreted by Vatican authorities (in ways quite contrary to those who seek to reconcile it with tradition), and the practical effects on our world – dealing with issues as varied as COVID-19 church closures, train crashes in Spain (in which the last rites were prevented in case they “interfere” with the emergency services), and the stated reasoning behind the SSPX’s 1988 episcopal consecrations.

This is the first such foreword I have provided. If you would like to read it then get the book from Stabat Mater Press:

• The Social Kingship of Christ According to Cardinal Pie – Fr. Théotime de Saint‑Just O.M.C.

(NB: I am not receiving any commission or benefits from sales.)

Who was Cardinal Pie?

Louis-Edouard-Désiré Pie (1815-80) was born in Pontgouin, France, in 1815. He rose in the ecclesiastical ranks until he was made bishop of Poitiers in 1849 and was elevated to cardinal by Pope Leo XIII in 1879, almost exactly a year before he died. He was an extremely energetic prelate, and his legacy was appreciated by several popes – as is recounted in Capuchin monk Fr. Théotime de Saint-Just’s introduction to the work. Pope St. Pius X, in particular, praised Cardinal Pie’s work publicly, calling him “my master.”

Cardinal Pie is one of the great, neglected voices in Catholic theology. His work provides a comprehensive exposition of the Social Kingship of Christ – and yet he remains almost unknown to English-speaking Catholics.

This is a great loss to us because the questions Cardinal Pie addressed in the 19th century – the duties of states toward God, the rights of Christ over civil society, the consequences of national apostasy from the Faith – are precisely the questions that confront us today.

About the book

The central question that Christ’s Social Kingship answers is expressed by Fr. Théotime in the introduction to the work:

Our Lord Jesus Christ – did He come to earth to sanctify souls, or did He also come to impose His will upon social institutions, codes of law, assemblies, and sovereigns themselves, thus becoming the supreme King of nations and peoples?

Cardinal Pie sets out the nature of Christ’s Kingship, showing that Our Lord did not come solely for sanctification of souls but also to “impose His will upon social institutions,” etc.; indeed, the latter is a necessary consequence of the former. For if Christ is King over all individuals, then He is their King whether they are alone or gathered as families, societies, and nations. All such gatherings of men have a duty to recognize this Kingship, and Christ has a right to their homage.

The WM Review and its editors have published many articles on this doctrine and its implications for our day.

• ‘Christ is King’—Christendom and Religious Liberty

• Enthronement of the Sacred Heart of Christ the King, the antidote society needs

• Did Vatican II betray ‘Christ the King’? (Podcast)

• Top 5 Christ the King articles

• Liberalism vs. Christ the King: the defining battle of our age

• Leo XIV openly rejects the reign of Christ the King over states and nations

• Ted Cruz is wrong: Christ must reign over every state and nation

• Report: Leo XIV says ‘our task is not to build a Christendom’

At a time in which the Kingship of Christ is reduced to largely individualistic terms and the phrase “Christ is King” is thrown around as a slogan emptied of its original doctrinal content, this synthesis could not have been re-translated and published at a better time.

Subscribe now

The order of the book

Fr. Théotime’s work proceeds in an orderly manner, starting with Cardinal Pie’s exposition of the doctrine and its implications for societies and nations. He then proceeds to the cardinal’s analysis of the rebellion against Christ’s Kingship, and the consequences of this rebellion. He presents Cardinal Pie’s explanation of how Christ’s Social Kingship can be restored – examining the duties of different classes of men. The work ends with Cardinal Pie’s “prophecies” of the two outcomes that await mankind, depending on whether Christ is “allowed” to reign, or whether mankind replies by saying, “We will not have this man to reign over us.”

What makes this synthesis by Fr. Théotime so valuable is Cardinal Pie’s integration of Scripture, the Fathers, and the magisterium into a single, coherent manifesto. He demonstrates why Christ’s Kingship extends necessarily to civil society, how the refusal to acknowledge it leads to ruin, and what the restoration of this Kingship requires of each class of men.

In particular, Cardinal Pie’s analysis of the consequences of the rebellion against Christ’s Kingship reads like a description of our world­ – making this work especially important for our time.

How the book was received at the time

Fr. Théotime received much praise for this work.

Fr. Josephus Antonius a Persiceto, the Master General of the Order of Friars Minor Capuchin praised it, speaking of the “greatest satisfaction” that he had reading this “fine work.”1

Fr. Théotime provides a number of reviews in the preface to the second edition. For example, Cardinal Mercier described it as “an illuminating synthesis,” and a professor at the Catholic University of Paris praised Fr. Théotime for having put Cardinal Pie’s work “into scholastic form,” and having given it “its full effectiveness against contemporary error.”2

He also provides the comments of a diocesan superior of a congregation:

Please accept my deepest gratitude and also my complete admiration for your perfect work. It is a well-organized, lively, illuminating, concise book which is both interesting and edifying to read. Not a word too many.

I read it with enthusiasm and with the desire that it be known and become the bedside book of all those who have authority over society, bishops, priests, legislators, and social leaders.3

Fr. Adhémar d’Alès, SJ, wrote the following in his review for Études4 in 1924:

The Rev. Fr. Théotime de Saint-Just had the very happy idea of gathering (Cardinal Pie’s teachings on the Social Kingship) so that they might be heard by the present generation.

He establishes, through textual quotations borrowed from the Bishop of Poitiers: (1) the right of Jesus Christ to reign over societies; (2) the all-too-certain fact of general apostasy; (3) the means for a possible restoration of this reign; (4) the future that is promised to him.

We must hope for the widest possible dissemination of these pages of sound doctrine and valiant faith.5

La France franciscaine said:

The work will be read with great profit.6

The Nouvelle revue théologique (which has nothing to do with the nouvelle théologie) wrote:

In today’s society, which is in the throes of a profound crisis of authority, Fr. Théotime … presents an ideal program.

The Revue des lectures praised the work by explicitly linking it with the encyclical Quas Primas:

“We are pleased to recommend this book in the wake of the Encyclical (Quas primas) on the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ … Fr. Théotime’s work will be very useful to priests and educated laymen in understanding the views of the Pope.”7

Lastly, Polybiblion featured the following review:

(An) excellent work, so full of doctrine and piety … The relevance of the subject-matter and the sound, clearly expounded doctrine ensure this book’s apostolic success, which will be the best reward for the author.8

The Social Kingship in our time

As mentioned above, the foreword explains why the doctrine of Fr Théotime’s work is so important for our own day, in terms of the attacks which it has sustained, and the consequences.

But there is another aspect to its contemporary relevance which we shold consider. The book ends with a discussion of whether we may reasonably hope for a restoration of Christ’s Kingship before the end of the world.

While firmly teaching that it is the duty of Christians to work for this restoration, Cardinal Pie was “neither overly optimistic nor discouragingly pessimistic about the future.” It seems that he did not expect a “very long period of social renewal in Christ before the end of the world” but that he nonetheless nurtured a hope for a possible “brilliant autumn for Christian society at the end of the world.”9

Also referring to Mgr. Delassus’ La Conjuration antichrétienne (The Anti-Christian Conspiracy, currently being translated and published by Shield of Faith Press), Fr. Théotime provided the following comments from Cardinal Pie:

What are the Lord’s thoughts on the Church, on society, on Rome, on France, on the world? Must we now descend a slippery slope to the bottom of the abyss? Must we climb back up to the light? It gives me pleasure to repeat: the predictions of the saints, the premonitions of the good, seem to allow us to hope yet for days of triumph, at least temporary, for the Church militant.10

(Incidentally, Fr Théotime refers positively to the great Mgr Delassus twelve times throughout the work, indicating where his sympathies lie.)

He also cites the following warning from Cardinal Pie, parts of which seems chillingly appropriate for our time:

[W]hat is certain is that as the world approaches its end, the wicked and the seducers will have more and more of an advantage. Faith will be almost impossible to find on earth – that is to say, it will have almost completely disappeared from all earthly institutions.

Believers themselves will hardly dare to make a public and social profession of their beliefs. The schism, the separation, the divorce of societies from God – which St. Paul gives as a sign preceding the end, nisi venerit discessio primum – will be consummated day by day.

The Church, a society that will undoubtedly always be visible, will be increasingly reduced to simply individual and domestic proportions. She, who said in her early days, ‘The place is too small for me, make room for me to dwell,’ Angustus mihi locus, fac spatium ut habitem, will find herself fighting for ground inch by inch, surrounded and hemmed in on all sides: as much as the centuries had made her great, so much will be done to restrict her.

Finally, there will be a veritable defeat for the Church on earth, and the Beast will be given power to wage war against the saints and defeat them. The insolence of evil will reach its peak.

Now, in this extreme situation, in this desperate state, on this globe given over to the triumph of evil and soon to be engulfed in flames, what should all true Christians, all good people, all saints, all men of faith and courage still do?

The very moving answer to this question will be found in the book.

Ultimately, Cardinal Pie’s teaching – as presented by Fr. Théotime – is both the accusation and the antidote for what has been ailing the world since Vatican II, and even before. As the Cardinal himself said:

The only hope for our social regeneration lies in the study of religion … the first step back to peace and happiness will be a return to the science of Christianity.

You can get Fr Théotime’s book here:

• The Social Kingship of Christ According to Cardinal Pie – Fr. Théotime de Saint‑Just O.M.C.

Subscribe now

Postscript: About Stabat Mater Press

Stabat Mater Press was founded in 2024 as a publishing house for traditional Catholic books and “dedicated to the restoration and preservation of the Church’s intellectual and spiritual patrimony.”

“We prioritize,” they say, “works that are expressly related to, or can shed light on, the Social Kingship of Our Lord.”

They also are engaged in restoring older texts. With a few exceptions, publishers releasing OCR scans of old texts can have low standards – and publish their Catholic works indiscriminately with very bad books (occult, masonry, heresy, and so on). Stabat Mater Press’s editions are avoiding both problems. You can see a sample of their quality in this preview of Fr Edward J. Cahill’s Freemasonry and the Anti-Christian Movement:

Regarding big print-on-demand publishers of good and bad OCR scans indiscriminately, SMP says:

As a family-owned publishing house, we take seriously the idea that Catholic books should be made by Catholics and for Catholics — those formed by the Faith, obedient to the Church, and committed to tradition.

Stabat Mater Press has already put together a small but impressive range of books in nice editions, including:

• Freemasonry and the Anti-Christian Movement – Fr. Edward J. Cahill

• To Restore All Things: Essays of Catholic Political Thought – de Maistre, Belloc, Dononso Cortes

• The Heresy of Popular Sovereignty – Fr. Charles Maignen

• INFERNO: A Journey Through Modern Hell in Search of Eternal Truth – Augustine Virgil

• The Social Kingship of Christ According to Cardinal Pie – Fr. Théotime de Saint‑Just, O.M.C.

Subscribe now

The editor is planning to migrate all of the titles away from Amazon in due course, in accordance with the vision which Mr Theo Howard from called “The Little Way of Christendom” – which is explained in the video and One Peter Five articles below:

• The Little Way of Christendom, Part 1

• The Little Way of Christendom, Part 2

You can get Fr. Théotime’s book here:

• The Social Kingship of Christ According to Cardinal Pie – Fr. Théotime de Saint‑Just, O.M.C.

HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!

As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.

Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.

A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.

You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.

And you can visit The WM Review Shop for our ‘Lovely Mugs’ and more.

(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)

Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!

Subscribe now

Donate

Lovely Mugs

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

Read Next:

Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:

• Twitter (The WM Review)

• The Father Coleridge Reader

• YouTube

• Telegram

Editor’s Notes

This is another text in our series of extracts drawn from Fr Domenico Palmieri SJ’s Treatise on the Roman Pontiff.

This text is Scholion II of Thesis XXXII, which deals with the exercise of the “merely authentic” (viz. authoritative, but not definitive or infallible) Papal magisterium.

We have already seen that Fr Palmieri is cited as an authority for this “resistance”, even though his references to such resistance pertain to matters other than teaching and governance,1 and even though he explicitly condemns those “who think that they can adhere to the Roman See and the Roman Church while resisting the Pontiff”, and holds that a Pope who obstinately falls into heresy is “stripped of jurisdiction by God.”

The merely authentic magisterium

The topic of the merely authentic magisterium is important, because it is precisely to this exercise of the magisterium that the advocates of the “recognise and resist theology” point. It is claimed that the problems that have arisen since Vatican II all pertain to such non-infallible acts, and thus they may be resisted.

However, the problems in need of explanation do not pertain to the “merely authentic” magisterium at all. For example, Dignitatis Humanae’s erroneous doctrine of religious liberty is presented in language indicative of an infallible definition; the Novus Ordo missal and certain provisions of Amoris Laetitia appear to be examples of universal disciplinary laws (whose infallibility is beyond question, being taught by the Church’s magisterium and theologians alike). Papal canonisations are themselves a kind of ex cathedra exercise and are also considered to fall under the secondary object of infallibility.

That said, Fr Palmieri makes clear that, the merely authentic exercise of the Papal magisterium is owed both “a respectful silence” and also “religious assent” – both of which are explained in the text. He also provides an explanation of the relationship between religious assent and the assent of faith, distinguishing both and showing how they are related.

Even though he recognises the possibility of error in a merely authentic teaching act, and thus the possibility of “suspending assent”, he also completely rules out the Pope being “publicly contradicted” or “the opposite doctrine to be defended” – “unless”, he adds, “it is established that he himself permits that the matter be disputed among Catholics.” This is certainly not the case for the problematic teachings that have been promulgated since Vatican II – as the treatment of those who reject them makes clear.

In the actual event of someone believing that they have discovered an error in the merely authentic papal magisterium, the correct response is to have recourse to Rome. Fr Anton Straub’s explains his view of the proper line of conduct in such an event:

“However, it can happen per accidens that either immediately or over time, it becomes apparent to someone that a decree is either certainly false, or contrary to a reasoning so solid, or at least unknown and not yet decided by the makers of the decree, that even the weight of sacred authority does not nullify the force of this reasoning.

“Now, since it is a rational obedience which is demanded, if the former occurs, it will be permitted to dissent; but if the latter, it will be permitted either, by suspending assent, to doubt or even to consider the opinion differing from the sacred decree as probable.

“Yet, out of reverence for the sacred authority (and especially to the supreme pontiff himself), it will not be right to contradict such a decree publicly, unless perhaps the sacred power itself permits this to be brought to a greater light for a question not yet definitively decided. On the contrary, silence (which some call ‘obediential’) must be maintained, or the difficulty must be modestly set forth before the sacred tribunal, or recourse must be had to a higher tribunal and infallible judgment.

“However, such mistakes in sacred decrees are very rarely found, and the exception itself of an error committed by the Roman congregations in the case of Galileo strongly confirms the rule. Hence, let each one take care not to deceive himself freely with a preoccupation for his own opinion, knowing that he must render a strict account to the Lord, the searcher of hearts.”2

Salaverri mentions that Fr Réginald Schultes OP held the same opinion (n. 675).

Note that we are here discussing conduct with regards to (a) the possibility of (b) isolated errors that appear (c) per accidens in acts of the (d) merely authentic magisterium. We are not discussing (a’) the reality of (b’) habitual error that is (c’) substantial (in the sense that it pertains directly to the objects taught) in (d’) definitive acts of the papal or conciliar magisterium, or to evil universal disciplinary laws. Certain “recognise and resist” apologists attempt to conflate these categories into “non-infallible teaching”, and apply to this conflation comments about resisting the Pope in altogether different circumstances. This is unwarranted in the extreme.

If one wishes to justify a “recognise and resist theology” with what these theologians have said about merely authentic acts of the magisterium not being infallible, it does not seem fitting to disregard what they say about public contradiction. But for an account of why the former category calls for the conduct described by Palmieri, and why the latter calls for a recognition that the putative Pope lacks authority, see Mgr Guérard des Lauriers OP here:

• ‘The Right of Scrutiny’ and the drawing of consequences – Fr Guérard des Lauriers OP

Miscellaneous interest

Fr Palmieri’s text also makes clear that it is a mistake to describe, as Professor Roberto de Mattei suggests, the Roman Pontiff as a “private doctor” unless he is issuing a solemn definition.3 He writes:

“In such a case it is not accurate to say that he speaks as a private teacher (doctor privatus); for although he does not speak from the fullness of his authority, he does speak with authority.

“Wherefore a Roman Pontiff speaking in this manner is not to be relegated to the rank of any private doctor possessing no authority.”

Fr Palmieri refers in passing to Pope Celestine III’s decision “in the case of the dissolution of marriage on account of the heresy of a spouse”. This is interesting, because this case has itself been raised as a precedent for the “Recognise and Resist theology” on the grounds that it is allegedly an example of “errors in non-infallible cases.”

One expression of the argument explains that Pope Celestine’s decretal letter “had normative value for similar cases”, and so has a significance beyond a simple marriage decision; it was in turn set right by Pope Innocent III who ruled in the opposite direction, and by Pope Gregory IX who “censured” the decretal. Both Bellarmine and Cajetan recognised that it was not an infallible teaching, and yet – we are told – it conveyed an error regarding the validity of a sacarament, which essentially authorised a permanent state of adultery.

From this, we are supposed to conclude that a legitimate Pope can indeed promulgate evil laws and false teaching whilst retaining authority, and that this was an example in which public resistance to the Roman Pontiff was legitimate.

However, Fr Palmieri’s pithy comment draws almost the opposite conclusion, stating:

“[Such a case] proves only the exception which we have posited – namely, that an assent of metaphysical certitude is not owed.”

In other words, all this incident proves is what is already admitted: that the merely authentic magisterium calls for an assent of moral certitude; it does not prove that public contradiction or organised resistance is justified – the comments about “resisting a Pope destroying the Church” dealing with completely different circumstances.4 This is especially the case when we consult the rest of the text in question (which is below), as well as the other texts which we have published.

In addition, we should note that a decision in a particular marriage case is not comparable with the exercise of the papal magisterium or with universal disciplinary laws.5 It offers no proof at all for the “recognise and resist theology” in question.

The late Fr Anthony Cekada also addressed this topic here:

‘Infallible safety’

Finally, it is notable that Fr Palmieri’s text does not mention the theory of the “infallible safety” of the merely authentic magisterium – that is, that while the merely authentic exercise of the magisterium is not assisted with the charism of infallibility with regard to truth, and so may in principle err, it nonetheless cannot teach any error which is dangerous.

While universal disciplinary laws can indeed be described as “infallibly safe” (as already mentioned), and while the theory in question is commonly accepted by “sedevacantists” today (and has been adopted by some Novus Ordo conservatives), some of its difficulties have been considered here:

• Infallible Safety? – What Cardinal Franzelin actually taught

The same topic is dealt with in the following articles – which also make no mention of this particular theory, presenting the basis of our assent in the moral certainty of truth, rather than the impossibility of harmful error:

• What kind of assent is owed to the different papal statements? Fr Anton Straub SJ

• The Force of Encyclicals in Light of “Humani Generis” – Salaverri, 19526

• Comments from Fr Thomas Pègues and Fr Franz Diekamp7

This is not to deny that something like this theory may be true, but rather to point out that the way it is presented and “proved” is often wanting – as is shown by the silence of those who treat the topic.

However, even if the theory were wholly false, and the “merely authentic” magisterium could indeed include a harmful doctrinal error, it does not follow that it is possible for it to do so habitually, as is clearly the case for the last sixty years. Fr Francesco Ricossa, whilst rejecting as unfounded (both in doctrine and in history) the idea that the papal magisterium may contain error, notes the following:

“Except for the case of extraordinary Magisterium, it is not impossible that by a single act, the Authority can carry some defects. It is impossible, on the contrary, that the Authority which forms a single thing with Christ would not guarantee the Good of the Church habitually.”8

With this established, here is the text.

You can read more about Fr Palmieri here.

Subscribe now

Tractatus de Romano Pontifice cum Prolegomeno de Ecclesia

Fr Dominico Palmieri SJ

Editio Altera Aucta Et In Nonnullis Emendata
Prati, 1891, pp. 704–709

Available at Archive.org

1. The See and the Seated: Fr Dominic Palmieri SJ against Gallican theology of the Papacy

2. ‘They miserably deceive themselves who think they can adhere to the Roman See while resisting the Pontiff’ – Fr Palmieri SJ

3. ‘Stripped of jurisdiction by God’ – Fr Palmieri SJ on the Pope Question

4. The Pope is ‘not to be publicly contradicted’ – Fr Palmieri on the non-infallible magisterium

The following text is for WM+ members.

The WM Review is free for readers. This is because we believe these ideas must reach as many people as possible.

However, we also provide WM+ articles – additional material for those who choose to support this work financially.

This helps us continue producing serious Catholic research, while ensuring that the main body of material remains accessible for all.

Read more

(WM Round-Up) – On Wednesday 12 August 2026, I appeared on Integrity Magazine’s podcast with to continue our new series about the indefectibility of the Church, and my long article ‘Spotless and Unsullied’ – Indefectibility and the Extended Vacancy.

The conversation finished up our discussion of Chapter III: Indefectibility and an Extended Vacancy.

Spotless and Unsullied is the third part of my response to Fr Thomas Crean OP’s article The Perpetual Visibility of the Catholic Church Under the Pope.

Much of what Fr Crean writes about indefectibility in his article is correct; however, it overlooks or obscures extra elements of this attribute of the Church, and this allows him to use it in an argument against “sedevacantism.”

Topics in this interview included:

• Abductive reasoning as a means of reaching an explanation

• An extended vacancy is possible

• Conclusion: The five criteria of abductive reasoning considered

Chapter III of Spotless and Unsullied is already available for all readers. You can read the whole work NOW in the book-length article discussed here:

Spotless and Unsullied – Indefectibility and the Extended Vacancy

(NB: It is not necessary to have read Radically Insufficient or Zero Marks before reading Spotless and Unsullied.)

Subscribe now

Other parts in the Zero Marks series:

• ‘Radically insufficient’ – Reply to Fr Crean on the Church’s visibility, Part I

• ‘Zero Marks’ – Why the Conciliar/Synodal Church is not the Catholic Church (Reply to Fr Thomas Crean) (All chapters and conclusion)

  • Introduction, and Chapter I: Unity

  • Chapter II: Holiness

  • Chapter III: Catholicity

  • Chapter IV: Apostolicity as a Mark

  • Chapter V: Apostolicity as a Property

  • Conclusion: ‘Hovel in the Valley’

• Spotless and Unsullied – Indefectibility and the Extended Vacancy (Part III)

  • Chapter I: What is indefectibility, and what are the ‘Gates of Hell’?

  • Chapter II: Fr Crean’s account of indefectibility

  • Chapter III: What’s the best explanation for the crisis in the Church?

Other Relevant Material:

• How long can the Holy See be vacant? Fr Louis Coache (and context)

• ‘Sedevacantism’ as a ‘pestiferous heresy’? Fr Ripperger’s accusation analysed

• Does a long vacancy interrupt perpetual succession? Fr Raphel Cercia SJ

• The See and the Seated: Fr Dominic Palmieri SJ against Gallican theology of the Papacy

• ‘Totem Pope’—Does the mere election of a pope fulfil Christ’s promises?

• ‘Totem Pope’—Should we ignore what goes on in Rome?

• 2 weeks or 60 years: Which fits Franzelin’s account of sede vacante?

See also:

• Fr Damien Dutertre ICR – ‘On the Indefectibility of the Church’

The previous interviews

This interview was a follow up to our previous conversations of the other parts of my response to Fr Crean.

Here is the first interview, on the visibility of the Church (Part I):

Here is the second, on the property of unity (Part II, Ch. 1):

Here is the third, on the property of holiness (Part II, Ch. II):

Here is the fourth, on the property of catholicity (Part II, Ch. III):

Here is the fifth, on the note of apostolicity (Part II, Ch. IV):

Here is the sixth, on the property of apostolicity (Part II, Ch. V):

Here is the seventh, on the conclusion to Zero Marks:

Here is the eighth, on the first chapter of Spotless and Unsullied:

Here is the ninth, on the second chapter of Spotless and Unsullied:

Here is the tenth, the first part on the third chapter of Spotless and Unsullied:

Thank you to Stephen for having me on again. I hope readers of The WM Review enjoy it – and give a follow too.

HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!

As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.

Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.

A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.

You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.

And you can visit The WM Review Shop for our ‘Lovely Mugs’ and more.

(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)

Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!

Subscribe now

Donate

Lovely Mugs

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:

• Twitter (The WM Review)

• The Father Coleridge Reader

• YouTube

• Telegram

Editors’ Notes

This is the eighth part of a serialisation of Orestes’ Brownson’s engagement with “Eastern Orthodoxy.”

It was originally published in two articles.

Article I

The background of this engagement – including that of the ex-Catholic author Abbé Vladimir (René-François) Guettée and his book The Schismatic Papacy – can be found in the first part. Here are the parts we have seen so far:

1. Eastern Orthodoxy? ‘The Schismatic Papacy’ and Guettée’s absurd imposture

2. Eastern Orthodoxy? St Cyprian is not a witness for schism

3. Eastern Orthodoxy? Schism defended with false history

Those parts made up one article; Brownson then proceeded to a second, much longer article. As such, this fifth part is also the eighth part of the second article.

Article II

4. Eastern Orthodox? Why the sixth canon of Nicæa isn’t an argument

5. Eastern Orthodoxy? Rome did not have primacy merely for being the capital city

6. Eastern Orthodoxy? No, Pope Leo the Great is not a witness against papal primacy

7. Eastern Orthodoxy? ‘Orthodox proofs’ from Chalcedon undermine their own case

8. Eastern Orthodoxy? St Gregory the Great and the ‘Universal Bishop’ title

Why are we publishing this?

For more on why we might bother republishing a nineteenth century review of a nineteenth century book, see the previous part. In short, Guettée’s book continues to bring the ill-informed into the Photian schism, and so Browson’s review and refutation continues to be of enduring importance.

As the contemporary “Orthodox” are publishing such works and encouraging Roman Catholics to enter into schism and heresy, they surely cannot complain about us publishing Brownson’s piece in response. We do so in good will, with the hope that they will instead return to the Church of Christ – outside of which there is absolutely no salvation whatsoever.

Subscribe now

St Gregory the Great and the ‘Universal Bishop’ title

Guettée’s ‘The Schismatic Papacy,’ Part 2.1

Orestes Brownson
Originally published as “Guetté’s Papacy Schismatic’1
From The Catholic World, 1867
Published in The Works of Orestes A. Brownson, Vol. VIII
Thorndike Nourse, Deroit, 1884. pp 491-500
Headings and some line breaks added by The WM Review

St Gregory the Great’s rejection of the title of ‘universal bishop’

The author imagines that he gets an argument against the papacy from St. Leo’s refusal to accept the title of universal bishop offered him by the Council of Chalcedon, as we learn from Pope St. Gregory the Great. He also thinks the argument is strengthened by the fact that St. Gregory himself disclaimed it; and he therefore claims both of these great pontiffs and great saints as witnesses against the pretensions of the bishops of Rome. If they had believed in their jurisdiction by divine right over the whole church, would they have refused the title of universal bishop?

John the Faster, Bishop of Constantinople, on some occasion summoned a particular council, and signed its acts, which he transmitted to Pope Pelagius II as universal patriarch, for which, as St. Gregory says, Pelagius, “in virtue of the authority of the apostle St. Peter, nullified the acts of the synod.”

Gregory succeeded Pelagius, and immediately on his accession to the pontificate wrote to the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, condemning the title, and warning them and the whole church of the danger it threatened; and also he wrote to John the Faster himself, admonishing him of the impropriety of the title, not only as savoring of pride and vanity, but as involving a most serious error against faith, and beseeching him to lay it aside, lest he be obliged to cut him off from the communion of the church, and depose him from his bishopric.

What St Gregory the Great actually said

He does not at all disclaim his own authority as supreme pastor and governor of the universal church, but quietly assumes it. Thus, he writes to the Emperor Maurice, as cited by the author:

“All who know the gospel know that the care of the whole church was confided by our Lord himself to Peter, the first (St. Gregory says prince) of all the apostles.

“Indeed, he said to him, ‘Peter, lovest thou me? Feed my sheep.’ Again he said to him: ‘Satan has desired to sift thee as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.’ It was also said to him: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’

“He thus received the keys of the celestial kingdom; the power to bind and loose was given him; the care of all the church and the primacy [principatus—principality, or primacy of jurisdiction] were committed to him, and yet he did not call himself universal apostle.

“But that holy man John (bishop of Constantinople), my brother in the priesthood [cosacerdos], would fain assume the title of universal bishop! O tempora! O mores!” (pp. 212, 213.)

“It is certain,” St. Gregory continues…

“… that this title was offered to the Roman pontiff by the venerable council of Chalcedon, to honor Blessed Peter, prince of the apostles.

“But none of us has consented to use this particular title, [title of singularity,] lest by conferring a special matter on one alone, all priests would be deprived of the honor which is their due.

“How, then, while we are not ambitious of the glory of a title which has been offered us, does another, to whom no one has offered it, have the presumption to take it?” (pp. 214, 215.)

In his letter to Eulogius of Alexandria and Anastasius of Antioch, St. Gregory is more explicit still:

“As your holiness, whom I particularly venerate, well knows, this title of universal, was offered by the Council of Chalcedon to the bishop [pontiff of the apostolic see, which by God’s grace I serve. But none of my predecessors would use this impious word, because in reality, if a patriarch be called universal, it takes from all others the title of patriarch.”

Subscribe now

The true grounds of the problem with the title of ‘universal bishop’

The author [Guettée], after quoting a passage from another letter to Eulogius, adds:

“Thus did Pope Gregory condemn even in the person of the bishops of Rome the title of pope and universal.”

But in this he is mistaken, as his own quotation shows. Eulogius answers that he will not give the title of universal patriarch to the bishop of Constantinople, but that he gives that of universal pope to the Roman pontiff. “No,” says St. Gregory, “if your holiness calls me universal pope, you deny yourself what I should then be altogether.”

The author interpolates in his quotation the copulative and, which is not in St. Gregory’s text. It is not to the title of pope that St. Gregory objects, which was and is applied to simple presbyters, but the title universal, which he will not permit to be applied to any man, because it excludes others from all participation in the hierarchy, or even the priesthood.

If you call a man a universal presbyter, you deny that any others are presbyters; if you call any one universal bishop, you exclude all others from the episcopate; if you call any one universal patriarch, you deny the patriarchate to all others; and if you call the bishop of Rome universal pope, since as such he possesses the priesthood, and both the apostolate and the episcopate in their plenitude, you exclude all others from sharing the priesthood, the episcopate, or the apostolate, even the pope himself from the church, and deny the solidarity of apostles, bishops, and presbyters, asserted, as we have seen, by St. Cyprian.

Eulogius was priest, bishop, and patriarch, and as such was the brother of the Roman pontiff. This brotherhood remained all the same, whether the Roman pontiff had or not supreme jurisdiction over the whole church. When Eulogius called St. Gregory, not, as the author says, pope and universal, but universal pope, he denied this brotherhood, and deprived himself of his own priestly, episcopal, and apostolic character. Hence, St. Gregory, after saying to him and other bishops, “I know what I am, and what you are; by your place or office, you are my brothers, by your virtues, my fathers,” he adds, in reference to the title of universal which Eulogius had given him:

“I beseech your holiness to do so no more in future, for you take from yourself what you give in excess to another. I do not ask to increase in dignities, but in virtues. I do not esteem that an honor by which my brethren are deprived of theirs.

“For my honor is the honor of the universal church, my honor is the unshaken firmness of my brethren. Then am I truly honored when to no one is denied the honor that is his due. For, if your holiness calls me universal pope, you deny that you are yourself what I should be confessed to be universally. Sed absit hoc. Recedant verba quæ vanitatem inflant, et charitatem vulnerant.”2

What this means for the papacy

We may call the bishop of Rome pope of the universal church, but not universal pope, nor universal bishop, because he only possesses in its plenitude what is possessed in a degree by every member of the hierarchy, and even now, as always, the pope addresses the bishops in communion with him as “Venerable Brethren.”

The argument against the claim of the bishop of Rome to jurisdiction in the universal church, which the author attempts to build on the refusal of the title of universal bishop by St. Leo, and that of universal pope, papa universalis, by St. Gregory, is refuted by St. Gregory himself, as cited in the volume before us, pp. 212, 213.

The holy pontiff and doctor, after asserting that our Lord had given to Peter the primacy of jurisdiction, and confided to him the care of the universal church, adds that Peter “did not call himself universal apostle.” Peter was not the only apostle, and the others could not be excluded from the apostleship. He was prince of the apostles, their chief, the centre of apostolic unity and authority, as St. Cyprian explains, and had the care and jurisdiction (principatus) of the universal church, as Gregory asserts, but inclusive, not exclusive of the other apostles. Peter held in relation to the other apostles and the whole church all the supremacy claimed by Catholics for the bishop of Rome.

If, then, the refusal of the title of universal apostle by St. Peter did not negative his supreme authority, why should the refusal of the title of universal bishop or universal pope by the bishops of Rome negative their supremacy, or their primacy of jurisdiction in the whole church? Peter held that primacy, and yet was not universal apostle, and why not, then, the bishop of Rome, without being universal bishop or universal pope?

HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!

As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.

Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.

A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.

You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.

(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)

Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!

Subscribe now

Donate

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

If you enjoyed this article, then why not get it in mug form?

Eastern 'Orthodoxy' Mug

(Now, now, our Eastern “Orthodox” friends, don’t get too stressed. It’s all in good humour. We wish you well, and pray for your good.)

Read Next:

Orestes Brownson’s review of Abbé Guettée’s The Papacy Schismatic:

1. Eastern Orthodoxy? ‘The Schismatic Papacy’ and Guettée’s absurd imposture

2. Eastern Orthodoxy? St Cyprian is not a witness for schism

3. Eastern Orthodoxy? Schism defended with false history

Article II

4. Eastern Orthodox? Why the sixth canon of Nicæa isn’t an argument

5. Eastern Orthodoxy? Rome did not have primacy merely for being the capital city

6. Eastern Orthodoxy? No, Pope Leo the Great is not a witness against papal primacy

7. Eastern Orthodoxy? ‘Orthodox proofs’ from Chalcedon undermine their own case

8. Eastern Orthodoxy? St Gregory the Great and the ‘Universal Bishop’ title

Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:

• Twitter (The WM Review)

• Father Coleridge Reader

• YouTube

• Telegram

Editor’s Notes

The following is another extract from Fr Domenico Palmieri SJ’s Treatise on the Roman Pontiff – namely, Scholion I of Thesis XXXII. This Scholion deals with the question of the “heretical Pope” – and whether he is deposed or should be deposed. It shows, once again, that Fr Palmieri cannot be cited as an authority for those who seek to recognise the post-conciliar claimants to the Papacy, while resisting their teaching and universal laws.

After considering whether it is possible for a Pope to fall into heresy in a private capacity – and he believes it is – Fr Palmieri states the following:

“Granting the hypothesis, the opinion is to be understood as follows: that a Pontiff obstinate in heresy – obstinate, I say: for if he himself yields to the Church’s admonition, nothing further remains to be done – is deposed not by man but by God Himself, who takes away the jurisdiction that was given; the Church merely declares that he is a heretic and that he has therefore been stripped of jurisdiction by God (Suarez, loc. cit., c. 7, n. 3).”

Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silva has argued that “deposition by God” is a misunderstanding of Bellarmine’s teaching, which Fr Palmieri appears to be following here. The actual “mechanism”, according to da Silva, is that the manifestly heretic deposes himself, tacitly renouncing the office by his embrace of that which is incompatible with it.

• What St Robert Bellarmine really taught about a heretic pope losing office 'ipso facto'

There is here a clear analogy with Can. 188, and while some argue that this canon cannot apply to a Pope, due to his being above canon law, it appears in part to enshrine principles of reason and the natural/divine law – as discussed eleswhere.

However, the point here is not Can. 188, but the theological point at hand: the heretical Pope is not resisted, but is rather deposed by God. He is not the Pope.

But when does this take place? As the above text indicates, Fr Palmieri also alludes to “the Church’s admonition” as a means by which obstinacy is established. Such allusions are often used to undermine the idea that the manifestly heretical Pope loses office ipso facto, without any declaration. However, even if we conceded this point for the sake of argument, we could answer with the following:

1. “The Church's admonitions” pertain to resolving the status of the Pope, not to indefinite resistance to his teaching and laws. If such resistance constitutes an admonition, then Paul VI was sufficiently admonished decades ago.

2. Building on the previous, the Pope has no superior on earth. As such, the need for an admonition is a reference not to an action of authority, as there is no authority over the Pontiff, but rather to clarity and publicity. The Fifth Position of St Robert Bellarmine pertains to one who is manifestly or openly heretical, and so such clarity and publicity is required. But if this clarity and publicity are achieved by other means, then it is hard to see why admonitions by a Council or specific churchmen are necessary for the per se effect to take place (i.e., the loss of the papacy, at least formally). The declaration which follows is merely making authoritatively clear what has already happened.

   1. On the other hand, it is not necessary to deny that an act of authority is needed “quoad nos”, in the sense that the recognition and cognitive judgement of the vacancy is not imposed upon the faithful except by those who have authority over them. As such, the act of authority could be understood as being in some sense over the faithful, rather than the (former) Pope; but the necessity of such an act of authority for making recognition of the vacancy extrinsically obligatory does not mean that it is necessary to make such recognition possible, nor indeed intrinsically obligatory.

3. Fr Palmieri states that “if [the Pope] himself yields to the Church’s admonition, nothing further remains to be done”. We arrive here at a point similar to that which we have made in reference to the “Fourth Position” of Cajetan. Those of our contemporaries who wish to take refuge in ideas that entail nothing happening until a declaration is made seem to forget that the debate is between those who think that the heretical Pope is deposed (depositus) on the one hand, and is to be deposed (deponendus) on the other. The deponendus position, or the interpretation of the depositus position which requires a declaration, are not justifications for indefinite resistance to a heretical Pope, or to one imposing heresy, errors, evil laws and a new religion. Perpetual resistance, pleas for liturgical crumbs, and discussions about obtaining canonical standing do not form a part of this. On the contrary, the fourth and “declarative” fifth positions require work towards what is necessary for deposition. Is this what is happening? It is evidently not – and those who argue advocate “resistance”, and justify it by claiming to prefer the deponendus or declarative depositus positions, appear to be horrified at the very idea of a deposition or working towards one.

And thus, the “Recognise and Resist” arguments about the Heretic Pope question appear to be little more than ways of avoiding the true meaning of the Fifth Position. And this is to say nothing of the fact that the Heretic Pope question is “downstream” of the vacancy: it can be established without reference to the personal heresy of the papal claimants through other arguments, and the principles behind the Fifth Opinion offer an explanation of how these men may have ceased (or never became) true Popes. As such, even if it were to be conceded that a declaration were needed to deprive an heretical pope of office, the post-conciliar claimants still would not be true Popes.

Further, even with concessions regarding admonitions, it is once again clear: Palmieri cannot be marshalled as an authority for the “recognise and resist” ecclesiology.

You can read more about Fr Palmieri here.

Subscribe now

Tractatus de Romano Pontifice cum Prolegomeno de Ecclesia

Fr Dominico Palmieri SJ

Editio Altera Aucta Et In Nonnullis Emendata
Prati, 1891, pp. 704–709

Available at Archive.org

1. The See and the Seated: Fr Dominic Palmieri SJ against Gallican theology of the Papacy

2. ‘They miserably deceive themselves who think they can adhere to the Roman See while resisting the Pontiff’ – Fr Palmieri SJ

3. ‘Stripped of jurisdiction by God’ – Fr Palmieri SJ on the Pope Question

The following text is for WM+ members.

The WM Review is free for readers. This is because we believe these ideas must reach as many people as possible.

However, we also provide WM+ articles – additional material for those who choose to support this work financially.

This helps us continue producing serious Catholic research, while ensuring that the main body of material remains accessible for all.

Read more

Editors’ Notes

This is the seventh part of a serialisation of Orestes’ Brownson’s engagement with “Eastern Orthodoxy.”

It was originally published in two articles.

Article I

The background of this engagement – including that of the ex-Catholic author Abbé Vladimir (René-François) Guettée and his book The Schismatic Papacy – can be found in the first part. Here are the parts we have seen so far:

1. Eastern Orthodoxy? ‘The Schismatic Papacy’ and Guettée’s absurd imposture

2. Eastern Orthodoxy? St Cyprian is not a witness for schism

3. Eastern Orthodoxy? Schism defended with false history

Those parts made up one article; Brownson then proceeded to a second, much longer article. As such, this seventh part is also the fourth part of the second article – which systematically dismantles Guettée’s attempted appeal to the Councils:

Article II

4. Eastern Orthodox? Why the sixth canon of Nicæa isn’t an argument

5. Eastern Orthodoxy? Rome did not have primacy merely for being the capital city

6. Eastern Orthodoxy? No, Pope Leo the Great is not a witness against papal primacy

7. Eastern Orthodoxy? ‘Orthodox proofs’ from Chalcedon undermine their own case

This present part contains ringing Brownson remarks such as the following, made in the face of “Orthodox” appeals to Pope St Leo the Great:

“Leo Magnus is our ideal of a pope, or visible head of the universal church, and we cannot sufficiently admire the hardihood or the stupidity that would claim him as a witness against the primacy he adorned, and the papal authority which he so gracefully and so majestically wielded, and with such grand effects for the church and the empire.”

For more on why we might bother republishing a nineteenth century review of a nineteenth century book, see the previous part. In short, Guettée’s book continues to bring the ill-informed into the Photian schism, and so Browson’s review and refutation continues to be of enduring importance.

As the contemporary “Orthodox” are publishing such works as Guettée's and encouraging Roman Catholics to enter into schism and heresy, they surely cannot complain about us publishing Brownson’s piece in response. We do so in good will, with the hope that they will instead return to the Church of Christ – outside of which there is absolutely no salvation whatsoever.

Subscribe now

‘Orthodox proofs’ from the Council of Chalcedon undermine their own case

Guettée’s ‘The Schismatic Papacy,’ Part 2.1

Orestes Brownson
Originally published as “Guetté’s Papacy Schismatic’1
From The Catholic World, 1867
Published in The Works of Orestes A. Brownson, Vol. VIII
Thorndike Nourse, Deroit, 1884. pp 491-500
Headings and some line breaks added by The WM Review

Back to the twenty-eighth canon

The refusal of St. Leo to confirm the twenty-eighth canon gave rise to the report that he had refused to confirm the acts of the council, and the Eutychians, against whom its definitions of faith were directed, began to raise their heads and boldly assert that they were not condemned, that the definitions of the council against them counted for nothing, since the Roman pontiff had refused to confirm them, as he refused to confirm the doings of the Ephesian Latrocinium.

The imperial court became alarmed, and the emperor wrote to St. Leo for an explicit statement of what he had done. St. Leo answers that he has confirmed all the decrees of Chalcedon defining the faith, but that he has not confirmed the decree erecting the church of Constantinople into a patriarchal church. This fact does not seem to favor the author’s theory that the Roman pontiff was held to have only a primacy of honor, nor that St. Leo did not claim universal jurisdiction.

It will have been observed that the Council of Chalcedon undertakes to support, very illogically indeed, the twenty-eighth canon on the authority of the third canon of the first Council of Constantinople, which gave the bishop of Constantinople simply the primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome. But St. Leo, in the letter to the empress just cited, denies the authority of that canon, on the ground that it had never been communicated to Rome, and therefore could have no effect.

We have dwelt at great length on the sixth canon of Nicæa, the third canon of Constantinople, and twenty-eighth of Chalcedon, because they are the author’s three strongholds, and we have wished to show that they do not in the least aid him—do in no sense contradict the papal authority, but, as far as they go, tend to confirm it.

The author claims St. Leo as a witness against the Catholic doctrine of the papal supremacy, and we have thought it well to show that he has in him about such a witness as he had in St. Cyprian, or as he would have in our holy father, Pius IX, now gloriously reigning. Leo Magnus is our ideal of a pope, or visible head of the universal church, and we cannot sufficiently admire the hardihood or the stupidity that would claim him as a witness against the primacy he adorned, and the papal authority which he so gracefully and so majestically wielded, and with such grand effects for the church and the empire. No nobler man, no truer saint, no greater pontiff ever sat in the chair of Peter, and no higher or more magnificent character is to be found in all history. Sancte Leo Magne, ora pro nobis.

Inadequacy of Guettée’s authorities

The author says:

“The canons of the first œcumenical councils throw incontestably a strong light upon the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome. They are the complement to each other. The twenty-eighth canon contains nothing less than the doctrine we defend, even though the opposition of the West in the person of the bishop of Rome should strip it of its ecumenical character, as certain theologians maintain.” (p. 102)

M. Guettée finds but two canons that in any respect favor his doctrine, the third of the second general council, and the twenty-eighth of the fourth, neither of which was ever accepted by the universal church, and both of which have remained from the first without Catholic authority. A doctrine sustained or favored only by irregularity and violent innovation needs no refutation.

“St. Leo,” the author continues…

“… did not protest against it, (the twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon,) as opposed to the divine and universal authority of the see of Rome, for which he claimed only an ecclesiastical primacy, but simply because it infringed upon the sixth canon of the council of Nicæa.”

That he claimed only an ecclesiastical primacy for his see is not true, for he claimed to annul the canon by authority of Peter. Nor did he object to it only because it infringed the sixth canon of Nicæa, but because it contained a grave innovation in the constitution of the church, and attempted to found the authority of bishops on a temporal instead of a spiritual and apostolic basis.

It proposed to change entirely the basis of the pontifical authority, which had hitherto rested on Peter, and to make it rest on the empire. The church of Constantinople was not an apostolic see, and only the bishop of an apostolic see could be clothed with patriarchal authority. This seems to us to be the great objection of St. Leo. Therefore, he writes to the emperor, as already cited:

“Let not the bishop of Constantinople disdain the imperial city, which he cannot make an apostolic see.”

Hitherto only apostolic sees and indeed only sees founded by Peter, had been clothed with the authority of patriarchal sees; and to give to a non-apostolic and non-Petrine church authority over other metropolitan churches was to strike at apostolic authority itself, and especially at that of Peter. The whole organization of the church was from the first based on Peter as the immediate representative of Christ and prince of the apostles.

The twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon was therefore aimed at Peter, and in the name and by the authority of Peter, whom he fully represented, St. Leo annulled it, and declared it void, and the author, without knowing well what he concedes, says: “St. Leo was right.”

Subscribe now

Guettée’s dilemma revisited

“One fact is certain, that they (the Roman pontiffs) did not convoke the first four ecumenical councils, that they did not preside over them and that they did not confirm them.”

This is certain only of the second general council, or first of Constantinople. But suppose it, what follows? Simply that they were not councils of the church at all—which will be very pleasant news to Unitarians and rationalists, who wish a Christianity without Christ—and can have the authority of general councils only by the ex post facto sanction of the universal church; but, as the two canons on which the author bases his anti-papal theory have never received that sanction, they have no authority, and never have had any.

Hence, the author’s theory, on any ground he chooses, has nothing in the church to sustain it. We shall, therefore, pass over what he adduces to prove the part taken by the civil authority in the councils, with the simple remark that the acts of several of them depend entirely on the confirmation of the Roman pontiff and the ex post facto sanction of the church for their authority.

‘Proofs’ of Orthodoxy prove Catholicism

M. Guettée’s proofs are not seldom proofs of the contrary of what he alleges.

“It is undeniable fact,” he says…

“… that the dogmatic letter addressed by St. Leo to the fathers of the council was there examined, and approved for this reason: that it agreed with the doctrine of Celestine [his predecessor] and Cyril, confirmed by the council of Ephesus.” (p. 118)

That the letter was read in the council, and that the council adopted its definitions of faith, is true; but that it was approved for the reason alleged does not appear from the proofs the author adduces. He continues, pp. 118, 119:

“At the close of the reading, the bishops exclaimed:

“‘Such is the faith of the fathers; this is the faith of the apostles. We all believe thus. Anathema to those who do not thus believe. Peter has spoken by Leo. Thus taught the apostles. Leo teaches according to piety and truth, and thus has Cyril taught.’”

Any one not bent on proving the papacy schismatic would gather from this that the bishops approved of the letter because they recognized in it the doctrine of the apostles and the tradition of the fathers.

HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!

As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.

Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.

A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.

You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.

(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)

Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!

Subscribe now

Donate

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

If you enjoyed this article, then why not get it in mug form?

Eastern 'Orthodoxy' Mug

(Now, now, our Eastern “Orthodox” friends, don’t get too stressed. It’s all in good humour. We wish you well, and pray for your good.)

Read Next:

Orestes Brownson’s review of Abbé Guettée’s The Papacy Schismatic:

1. Eastern Orthodoxy? ‘The Schismatic Papacy’ and Guettée’s absurd imposture

2. Eastern Orthodoxy? St Cyprian is not a witness for schism

3. Eastern Orthodoxy? Schism defended with false history

Article II

4. Eastern Orthodox? Why the sixth canon of Nicæa isn’t an argument

5. Eastern Orthodoxy? Rome did not have primacy merely for being the capital city

6. Eastern Orthodoxy? No, Pope Leo the Great is not a witness against papal primacy

7. Eastern Orthodoxy? ‘Orthodox proofs’ from Chalcedon undermine their own case

Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:

• Twitter (The WM Review)

• Father Coleridge Reader

• YouTube

• Telegram

Editors’ Notes

This is the sixth part of a serialisation of Orestes’ Brownson’s engagement with “Eastern Orthodoxy.”

Article I

The background of this engagement – including that of the ex-Catholic author Abbé Vladimir (René-François) Guettée and his book The Schismatic Papacy – can be found in the first part. Here are the parts we have seen so far:

1. Eastern Orthodoxy? ‘The Schismatic Papacy’ and Guettée’s absurd imposture

2. Eastern Orthodoxy? St Cyprian is not a witness for schism

3. Eastern Orthodoxy? Schism defended with false history

Those parts made up one article; Brownson then proceeded to a second, much longer article. As such, this sixth part is also the third part of the second article – which systematically dismantles Guettée’s attempted appeal to the Councils:

Article II

4. Eastern Orthodox? Why the sixth canon of Nicæa isn’t an argument

5. Eastern Orthodoxy? Rome did not have primacy merely for being the capital city

6. Eastern Orthodoxy? No, Pope Leo the Great is not a witness against papal primacy

For more on why we might bother republishing a nineteenth century review of a nineteenth century book, see the previous part. In short, Guettée’s book continues to bring the ill-informed into the Photian schism, and so Browson’s review and refutation continues to be of enduring importance.

As the contemporary “Orthodox” are publishing such works like Guettée's and encouraging Roman Catholics to enter into schism and heresy, they surely cannot complain about us publishing Brownson’s piece in response. We do so in good will, with the hope that they will instead return to the Church of Christ – outside of which there is absolutely no salvation whatsoever.

Subscribe now

No, Pope Leo the Great is not a witness against papal primacy

Guettée’s ‘The Schismatic Papacy,’ Part 2.1

Orestes Brownson
Originally published as “Guetté’s Papacy Schismatic’1
From The Catholic World, 1867
Published in The Works of Orestes A. Brownson, Vol. VIII
Thorndike Nourse, Deroit, 1884. pp 491-500
Headings and some line breaks added by The WM Review

The status of Chalcedon and the role of the Pope

The council [of Chalcedon] is generally accepted as the fourth general council, but only by virtue of the papal confirmation, and only so far as the pope confirmed its acts.

In many respects the council was a scandalous assembly, almost wholly controlled by the emperor and the Byzantine lawyers or magistrates, who have no authority in the church of God. The part taken by the emperor and civil magistrates wholly vitiated it as a council of the church, and all the authority its acts had or could have for the church was derived from their confirmation by St. Leo the Great.

But bad as the council was, the twenty-eighth canon never received its sanction. It was introduced by the civil magistrates, and when only one hundred and fifty bishops, all orientals, out of the six hundred composing the council, were present, and no more subscribed it. It was resisted by the legates of the Roman pontiff and protested against; the patriarchal churches of Alexandria and Antioch were unrepresented. Dioscurus, bishop of the former, was excluded for his crimes, and Macarius of Antioch had just been deposed by the emperor and council for heresy and expelled; a large number of prelates had withdrawn, and only the rump of the council remained. It is idle to pretend that the canon in question was the act even of the council, far less of the universal church.

The dilemma for the ‘Orthodox’

Now, either Leo the Roman pontiff had authority to confirm the acts of the Council of Chalcedon, and by his authority as supreme pastor of the church to heal their defects and make them binding on the universal church, or he had not.

If he had, the controversy is ended, for that is precisely what Mr. Guettée denies; if he had not, as Mr. Guettée contends, then the acts of Chalcedon have in themselves no authority for the church, since through the tyranny of the emperor Marcian and the civil magistrates it was not a free council, and, though legally convoked and presided over, was not capable of binding the church.

The author may take which horn of the dilemma he chooses, for the pope refused to confirm the twenty-eighth canon, and declared it null and void from the beginning.

The fathers of the council, or a portion of them, in the name of the council, addressed a letter to the Roman pontiff in which they recognize him as the constituted interpreter of the words and faith of Peter for all, explain what they have done, the motives from which they have acted, and pray him “to honor their judgment by his decrees” that is, confirm their acts. St. Leo confirmed those of their acts that pertained to the definition of faith, but refused to confirm the twenty-eighth canon, which he annulled and declared void, as enacted without authority, and against the canons.

The attempted escape

Mr. Guettée says, pp. 97, 98, that the council did not ask the Roman pontiff to confirm the canon in question,

“… but by his own decrees to honor the judgment which had been rendered. If the confirmation of the bishop of Rome had been necessary, would the decree of Chalcedon have been a judgment, a promulgated decision, before that confirmation?”

An authoritatively “promulgated decision” certainly not; but the author forgets that the canon had not been promulgated, and never became “a promulgated decision.” As to its being a judgment, a final or complete judgment it was not, and the council, by calling it nostrum judicium, do not pretend that it was. They present it to the Roman pontiff only as an inchoate judgment, to be completed by his confirmation. They tell the pope that his legates have protested against it, probably because they wished to preserve to him its initiation, and that in adopting it they…

“… had deferred to the emperor, to the senate, and the whole imperial city, thinking only to finish the work which his holiness, who always delights to diffuse his favors, had begun.”

The plain English of which is, We have enacted the canon out of deference to the civil authority and the wishes of the imperial city, subject to your approval. Rogamus igitur, honora et tuis sententiis nostrum judicium. “We pray you, therefore, to honor our judgment by your decrees.”2

If this does not mean asking the pope to confirm their act or judgment, we know not what would so mean. It is certain that St. Leo himself, who is one of the author’s anti-papal authorities, so understood it, as is evident from his replies to the emperor, the empress, and Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, the assertion of M. Guettée to the contrary notwithstanding.

Further evidence of the necessity of papal approval

The Emperor Marcian wrote expressly to St. Leo, begging him to confirm by his apostolic authority the acts of the council, and especially the twenty-eighth canon, because without his confirmation they would have no authority. The Empress Pulcheria wrote him to the same effect, and finally Anatolius did the same. To the emperor the Roman pontiff replied, and set forth the reasons why he could not confirm the canon in question.

He makes short work with M. Guettée’s doctrine, broached in the second council, and extended in the twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon, that the rank and authority of the see derive from the rank, authority, or importance of the city in which it is established. He denies that the fact that Constantinople was the second capital of the empire, or the new Rome, was any reason for elevating its bishop to the patriarchal rank and authority.

“Let, as we desire, the city of Constantinople have its glory, and, protected by the right hand of God, may it long enjoy the reign of your clemency; but different is the reason of secular things from the reason of divine things, and no edifice will be stable unless it is built on that rock (St. Matthew xvi. 18) which the Lord has laid for a foundation.

“Who covets what is not his due shall lose what is his own. Let it suffice this man (Anatolius), that by the aid of your piety and my assent and favor, he has obtained the episcopate of so great a city. Let him not disdain the imperial city because he cannot make it an apostolic see; and let him by no means hope to enlarge his power at the expense of others.”

It is very clear from this that St. Leo did by no means concede that the bishop of Constantinople was entitled to be clothed with patriarchal power and take precedence of the patriarch of Alexandria, because he had his see in what had become the second capital of the empire. Alia ratio est rerum secularium, alia divinarum; nec præter illam petram quam Dominus in fundamento posuit, stabilis erit ulla constructio; that is, only what is built on Peter, the rock, will stand, and in vain do you build on the greatness, splendor, and dignity of earthly cities.3

If M. Guettée had remembered this, he would never have turned from the chair of Peter, or allowed himself to be seduced by the nationalism of the Greek sophists, and the misguided ambition of the bishop of Constantinople. Alas! he left his father’s house, and, famished in the far country to which he has wandered, he is forced to feed on husks with the swine he tends. What can that man think of the church of God who holds that the dignity and authority or its prelates have only a secular origin?

Subscribe now

Why St Leo refused the canon

St. Leo unequivocally refuses, in his reply to the solicitations of the emperor, to confirm the twenty-eighth canon.

“And why,” asks the author, p. 98…

“… did he refuse his assent? Because the decree of Chalcedon took from the bishop of Alexandria the second rank, and the third from the bishop of Antioch, and was in so far forth contrary to the sixth canon of Nicæa, and because the same decree prejudiced the rights of several primates or metropolitans…”

… that is, of Pontus, Asia Minor, and Thrace.

This we think was reason enough, and proves that the Roman pontiff was not only the chief custodian of the faith, but also of the canons. “The bishop of Constantinople,” says St. Leo, as cited by the author…

“… in spite of the glory of his church, cannot make it apostolic; he has no right to aggrandize it at the expense of churches whose privileges, established by the canons of the holy fathers, and settled by the decrees of the venerable Council of Nicæa, cannot be unsettled by perversity nor violated by innovation.”

St. Leo in the whole controversy appears as the defender of the canons against innovation, and of the catholicity of the church against Greek nationalism.

The author continues, same page:

“In his letter to the Empress Pulcheria, St. Leo declares that he has ‘annulled the decree of Chalcedon by the authority of St. Peter.’ These words seem at first sight to mean that he claimed for himself a sovereign [supreme] authority in the church in the name of St. Peter.”

Undoubtedly, not only at first sight, but at every sight. The pope uses the strongest terms to be found in the Latin language, and terms which can be used only by one having the supreme authority, irritus and cassare. He refuses to ratify it, declares it null, and says, “per auctoritatem Beati Petri apostoli,” he makes it void. He could make no greater assumption of authority.

Another contrived escape refuted

“But,” adds the author, upon a more careful and unbiased examination of his letter and other writings…

“… we are convinced that St. Leo only spoke as the bishop of an apostolic see, and that in this character he claimed the right, in the name of the apostles who founded his church, and of the Western countries which he represented, to resist any attempt of the Eastern Church to decide alone matters of general interest to the whole church,” pp. 98, 99.

If he is convinced, we are not. If such was St. Leo’s meaning, why did he not say so? Why did he annul when he only meant that the canon was null, because decreed by Orientals alone; or why did he not assign that reason for annulling it, and not the reason that it was repugnant to the canons of the holy fathers and the decrees of the Council of Nicæa?

“The proof that he regarded matters in this light (p. 99,) is that he does not claim for himself any personal authority of divine origin, descended to him from St. Peter, but that, on the contrary, he presents himself as the defender of the canons, and looks upon the rights and reciprocal duties of the churches as having been established by the fathers and fixed by the Council of Nicæa. He does not pretend that his church has any exceptional rights, emanating from another source.” (p. 99)

This proof is inconclusive. St. Leo had no occasion to claim personal authority for himself, for whatever authority he had was official, not personal, and inhered in him as the successor of Peter in the apostolic see of Rome, and in this capacity he most assuredly did claim to have authority, when he declared to the Empress Pulcheria, as we have seen, that, “by authority of Peter, he annulled and made void and of none effect,” the decree of Chalcedon.

What the author says he did not do, is precisely what he did do. He does not annul and make void the decree by authority vested in him by the canons, or which he holds by ecclesiastical right, but “by the authority of Peter.”

He, moreover, was not defending the rights and prerogatives of his own see, nor his authority as metropolitan, patriarch, or supreme pontiff, for this was not called into question; the council most fully recognized it, and in his letter defining the faith against Eutyches, it professed to hear the voice of Peter. He was defending the canons, not for himself, nor for churches subjected to him as patriarch of the West, but for Alexandria, Antioch, and the metropolitans of Pontus, Asia Minor, and Thrace, which the twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon sought to subject to the bishop of Constantinople; and he therefore had no occasion to dwell on the exceptional rights, or rights not derived from the canons, but from God through Peter, of the Roman Church. It sufficed him to exercise them, which he did do effectually.

“By ecclesiastical right he is the first bishop of the church,” the author continues…

“… besides, he occupies the apostolic see of the West; in these characters he must interfere and prevent the ambition of one particular church from impairing rights that the canons have accorded to other bishops too feeble to resist.”

Wherefore must he do so? In these characters he might offer his advice, he might even refuse his assent to acts he disapproved; but he could not authoritatively interfere in any matters outside of his own particular diocese, or his own patriarchate, far less to annul and make void acts which did not concern him in either of these characters. He had no right to interfere in the way he did, except as supreme pontiff and head of the whole church, and Roman theologians have never claimed for the Roman pontiff greater power than St. Leo exercised in the case of the Council of Chalcedon.

Absurd conclusions drawn from the premises

“After reading all that St. Leo has written against the canon of the council of Chalcedon, it cannot be doubtful what he meant.”

We agree to that, nor is it doubtful what he did. He annulled and made void by authority of Peter an act of a general council, and null and void it remained.

“He does not claim for himself the autocracy which Roman theologians make the groundwork of the papal authority.”

Very likely not, for nobody claims it for the Roman pontiff, as we showed in our former article. He is the supreme pastor, not the autocrat, of the church.

“In his letter to the fathers of the council of Chalcedon he only styles himself ‘guardian of the Catholic faith and of the constitutions of the fathers,’ and not chief and master of the church by divine right.”

Does he deny that he is chief and master by divine right? Certainly not, and no one can read his letters without feeling that in every word and syllable he speaks as a superior, in the language and tone of supreme authority. His reply to Anatolius is such as could be written only by a superior not only in rank, but in authority, and while replete with the affection of a father, it is marked by the majestic severity of supreme power.

HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!

As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.

Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.

A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.

You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.

(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)

Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!

Subscribe now

Donate

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

If you enjoyed this article, then why not get it in mug form?

Eastern 'Orthodoxy' Mug

(Now, now, our Eastern “Orthodox” friends, don’t get too stressed. It’s all in good humour. We wish you well, and pray for your good.)

Read Next:

Orestes Brownson’s review of Abbé Guettée’s The Papacy Schismatic:

1. Eastern Orthodoxy? ‘The Schismatic Papacy’ and Guettée’s absurd imposture

2. Eastern Orthodoxy? St Cyprian is not a witness for schism

3. Eastern Orthodoxy? Schism defended with false history

Article II

1. Eastern Orthodox? Why the sixth canon of Nicæa isn’t an argument

2. Eastern Orthodoxy? Rome did not have primacy merely for being the capital city

3. Eastern Orthodoxy? No, Pope Leo the Great is not a witness against papal primacy

Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:

• Twitter (The WM Review)

• Father Coleridge Reader

• YouTube

• Telegram

Editor’s Notes

This is the second half of Fr Domenico Palmieri SJ’s Treatise on the Roman Pontiff, Thesis XXX. In this chapter, the Jesuit theologian refutes aspects of the Gallicanist theology of the Papacy.

As is clear from his treatment, this theology has much in common with the principles behind what is today called the “recognise and resist” movement. This movement holds (a) that a true Pope may teach error and even heresy, and promulgate universal disciplinary laws which are harmful to souls; and that in response, Catholics should (b) continue to recognise him as Pope, whilst (c) resisting his harmful teaching and universal laws. Fr Palmieri himself has been cited in support of this movement's ecclesiology.

In the first half, Fr Palmieri explained how the See and the “Seated” occupant may be distinguished – and how they may not be distinguished. He proceeds to explain how and why the rights of the See are indeed the rights of the Seated, and then considers how a vacancy of the Holy See affects the preceding points.

In this part, however, he takes direct aim at the Gallicans conception of the papacy, and explicitly rejects the idea of resisting the Roman Pontiff in the exercise of his teaching and governing authority.

Nor can his comments be limited to infallible ex cathedra definitions: although he does address this matter, his treatment refers to the immunity of the Roman See from all error. Referring to the Patristic texts from Pope Hormisdas and others, he asks:

“But if holy doctrine is always celebrated in that See, how can error at times creep in?”

This matter is also addressed in our long study Spotless and Unsullied:

• ‘Spotless and Unsullied’ – Indefectibility and the Extended Vacancy.

He answers his own question by stating the Gallican concept of the Papacy as entailing “that the institution of Christ would be wholly perverted and rendered vain.” He also described a Papacy, as the Gallican hypothesis conceived it, as being “altogether inept and unworthy of God” – and contributing nothing to the Church.

As such, it is clear: Palmieri cannot be marshalled as an authority for the “recognise and resist” ecclesiology. In fact, he himself not only recognised an earlier form of it in his day: he also resisted it in the strongest terms.

You can read more about Fr Palmieri here.

Subscribe now

Tractatus de Romano Pontifice cum Prolegomeno de Ecclesia

Fr Dominico Palmieri SJ

Editio Altera Aucta Et In Nonnullis Emendata
Prati, 1891, pp. 704–709

Available at Archive.org

1. The See and the Seated: Fr Dominic Palmieri SJ against Gallican theology of the Papacy

2. ‘They miserably deceive themselves who think they can adhere to the Roman See while resisting the Pontiff’ – Fr Palmieri SJ

THESIS XXX: Corollary

Recap of the Thesis Statement:

Every prerogative of the Roman See resides in the very person of the Roman Pontiff as in its subject; and therefore these prerogatives are most truly called personal, and the same prerogatives belong equally to each of Peter’s successors. Hence, although it is lawful in one respect to distinguish between the See and the Seated [inter sedem et sedentem], nevertheless such a distinction must be utterly rejected as false and absurd when it is directed to this end, namely, that the prerogatives and rights of the See should be different from the prerogatives and rights of those occupying it, and that the Roman See, or the whole series of the succession, should indeed enjoy the privilege of indefectibility or infallibility in faith, but not each individual successor of Peter separately.

Corrollary: Therefore those men miserably deceive themselves who think that they can adhere to the Roman See and the Roman Church while resisting the Pontiff.

The infallibility of every individual Pope

IV. Now the second point must be proved, namely, that the individual Pontiffs are infallible.

Bossuet (Defensio, l. 10. c. 5.) teaches that although certain Pontiffs may not preach the true faith, but may err in it, nevertheless the faith of the Roman See remains invariable. For the defect of one Pontiff will either be repaired by the same Pontiff himself or by his successor. He therefore wishes the whole succession of the Roman Pontiffs to be considered as though together constituting the person of Peter, whose faith shall never totally fail. This faith can waver and at times fail in some particular Pontiff, just as, according to him, it failed in Peter when he denied Christ; but shortly afterwards it shall be restored, so that error cannot strike roots in this succession.

Thus the whole series is indefectible in faith, but not each one of the successors. Cardinal de Luzerne says:

“An infallible authority is one which can never err, even for one moment, in decisions of faith. Indefectibility of faith consists in this, that the faith cannot wholly perish; but if at some time it fails, it is promptly restored: so that if some Pope professes or teaches error, shortly afterwards the error may be corrected either by himself or by his successor.” (part 2. c. 2.)

But what sort of indefectibility is this? Is it properly infallibility? Those who claim the privilege of infallibility only for the universal Church or for a Council, as Bossuet does, must also teach that the indefectibility of the Roman See consists in this, that it indefectibly holds the faith which the Church teaches; but therefore not by teaching, but by learning: namely, that its infallibility is not active, but only passive, as Tournely says in the cited place. Certain men, however, seem to understand active indefectibility in such a way that, as we have just said, they concede infallibility to the See, but not to the one occupying it; they are perhaps not far from this interpretation (cf. Mourray, De Ecclesia, disp. 20. sect. 3. § 3.). For it must be recalled that distinctions of this sort arose from polemical controversy and were devised by all these men in order to meet the arguments of the Roman theologians, and therefore were adjusted according to necessity.

But in fact, the true doctrine entails much more…

The following comments are for WM+ members.

The WM Review is free for readers. This is because we believe these ideas must reach as many people as possible.

However, we also provide WM+ articles – additional material for those who choose to support this work financially.

This helps us continue producing serious Catholic research, while ensuring that the main body of material remains accessible for all.

Read more

Editor’s Notes

Fr Domenico Palmieri SJ was an Italian Jesuit theologian. Born in 1829, he was ordained a priest in 1852 and entered the Society of Jesus in the same year. As a Jesuit he taught a number of subjects, and spent sixteen years as a professor in the Roman College. He also held a position in the curia from 1893, and was one of the first opponents of the modernist Alfred Loisy. He also wrote a commentary on Dante Alighieri’s Divine Comedy.

Palmieri has recently been cited as an authority for the so-called “recognise and resist theology”, which holds (a) that a true Pope may teach error and even heresy, and promulgate universal disciplinary laws which are harmful to souls; and that in response, Catholics should (b) continue to recognise him as Pope, whilst (c) resisting his harmful teaching and universal laws. For instance, Palmieri wrote:

“In the event that the Pontiff behaves badly, unjustly inflicts harm, and persecutes the Church, it is permissible to resist the Pontiff.”

In this context, Palmieri cites St Robert Bellarmine; but, as we have discussed elsewhere, Bellarmine’s “resistance quotes” do not provide any grounds for the modern “recognise and resist theology”. Bellarmine himself cites both Cajetan and Torquemada, both whom make clear that their conception of “destroying the Church” excludes the teaching of error or promulgation of evil laws.

Palmieri’s theology also excludes such an interpretation. The extract below is the first half of Thesis XXX of his work on the Roman Pontiff, Tractatus de Romano Pontifice cum prolegomeno de Ecclesia. This extract amply demonstrates that Palmieri cannot be marshalled as an authority for this theology. In this first part, he explains how the See and the “Seated” occupant may be distinguished – and how they may not be distinguished. He proceeds to explain how and why the rights of the See are indeed the rights of the Seated, and then considers how a vacancy of the Holy See affects the preceding points.

All this is a preparation for the final point, which he summarises as follows:

“Therefore those men miserably deceive themselves who think that they can adhere to the Roman See and the Roman Church while resisting the Pontiff.”

His treatment of this final point will form the following part.

Let us proceed to the first part of Thesis XXX.

Subscribe now

Tractatus de Romano Pontifice cum Prolegomeno de Ecclesia

Fr Dominico Palmieri SJ

Editio Altera Aucta Et In Nonnullis Emendata
Prati, 1891, pp. 704–709

Available at Archive.org

1. The See and the Seated: Fr Dominic Palmieri SJ against Gallican theology of the Papacy

2. 'They miserably deceive themselves who think they can adhere to the Roman See while resisting the Pontiff' – Fr Palmieri SJ

THESIS XXX

Every prerogative of the Roman See resides in the very person of the Roman Pontiff as in its subject; and therefore these prerogatives are most truly called personal, and the same prerogatives belong equally to each of Peter’s successors. Hence, although it is lawful in one respect to distinguish between the See and the Seated [inter sedem et sedentem], nevertheless such a distinction must be utterly rejected as false and absurd when it is directed to this end, namely, that the prerogatives and rights of the See should be different from the prerogatives and rights of those occupying it, and that the Roman See, or the whole series of the succession, should indeed enjoy the privilege of indefectibility or infallibility in faith, but not each individual successor of Peter separately.

Note that the distinction between the See and the Seated [the occupant of the See] can be applied to all the jurisdiction and rights of the Primacy. Nevertheless, it was devised in the question concerning infallibility, and therefore we speak of it here in that connection. Yet what we say on the occasion of this question can easily be adapted to the other prerogatives of the Primacy.

The following comments about are for WM+ members.

The WM Review is free for readers. This is because we believe these ideas must reach as many people as possible.

However, we also provide WM+ articles – additional material for those who choose to support this work financially.

This helps us continue producing serious Catholic research, while ensuring that the main body of material remains accessible for all.

If you want to ensure that this continues, join WM+ today.

(Clergy and seminarians can contact us for free membership.)

Read more

Editors’ Notes

This is the fifth part of a serialisation of Orestes’ Brownson’s engagement with “Eastern Orthodoxy.”

Article I

The background of this engagement – including that of the ex-Catholic author Abbé Vladimir (René-François) Guettée and his book The Schismatic Papacy – can be found in the first part. Here are the parts we have seen so far:

1. Eastern Orthodoxy? ‘The Schismatic Papacy’ and Guettée’s absurd imposture

2. Eastern Orthodoxy? St Cyprian is not a witness for schism

3. Eastern Orthodoxy? Schism defended with false history

Those parts made up one article; Brownson then proceeded to a second, much longer article. As such, this fourth part is also the first part of the second article – which systematically dismantles Guettée’s attempted appeal to the Councils.

Article II

4. Eastern Orthodox? Why the sixth canon of Nicæa isn’t an argument

5. Eastern Orthodoxy? Rome did not have primacy merely for being the capital city

For more on why we might bother republishing a nineteenth century review of a nineteenth century book, see the previous part. In short, Guettée’s book continues to bring the ill-informed into the Photian schism, and so Browson’s review and refutation continues to be of enduring importance.

As the contemporary “Orthodox” are publishing such works and encouraging Roman Catholics to enter into schism and heresy, they surely cannot complain about us publishing Brownson’s piece in response. We do so in good will, with the hope that they will instead return to the Church of Christ – outside of which there is absolutely no salvation whatsoever.

Subscribe now

Rome did not have primacy merely for being the capital city

Guettée’s ‘The Schismatic Papacy,’ Part 2.1

Orestes Brownson
Originally published as “Guetté’s Papacy Schismatic’1
From The Catholic World, 1867
Published in The Works of Orestes A. Brownson, Vol. VIII
Thorndike Nourse, Deroit, 1884. pp 491-500
Headings and some line breaks added by The WM Review

The First Council of Constantinople

M. Guettée pretends that the third canon of the second general council, the first of Constantinople, contains a denial of the papal authority by divine right. The canon, as he cites it, which is only the concluding part of it, says:

“Let the bishop of Constantinople have the primacy of honor (priores honoris partes) after the bishop of Rome, because Constantinople is the new Rome.”

Hence he concludes that as the primacy conferred on the bishop of Constantinople was only a primacy of honor, the bishop of Rome had only a primacy of honor; and as the primacy of honor was conferred on the bishop of Constantinople because that city was the new Rome, so the primacy of the bishop of Rome was conferred because he was the bishop of old Rome, or the capital of the empire.

The reasoning, which is Guettéean, if we may coin a word, is admirable, and we shall soon see what St. Leo the Great thinks of it. But the canon does not affect the authority, rank, or dignity of the bishop of Rome; it simply gives the bishop of Constantinople the precedence of the bishop of Alexandria, who had hitherto held the first rank after the bishop of Rome. It conferred on him no power, and took nothing from the authority of any one else. It was simply a matter of politeness.

Besides, the canon remained without effect.

The Council of Chalcedon

From the second general council the author rushes, pp. 96, 97, to the fourth, the Council of Chalcedon, held under the pontificate of St. Leo Magnus, in 451, and lights upon the twenty-eighth canon of that council, which, as he gives it, reads:

“In all things following the decrees of the holy fathers, and recognizing the canon just read (the third of the second council) by the one hundred and fifty bishops well beloved of God, we decree and establish the same thing touching the most holy church of Constantinople, the new Rome.

“Most justly did the fathers grant privileges to the see of ancient Rome, because she was the reigning (capital) city. Moved by the same motive the one hundred and fifty bishops well beloved of God grant equal privileges to the most holy see of the new Rome, thinking, very properly, that the city that has the honor to be the seat of the empire and the senate should enjoy in ecclesiastical things the same privileges as Rome, the ancient queen city, since the former, although of later origin, has been raised and honored as much as the former.

“In consequence of this decree the council subjected the dioceses of Pontus, Asia (Asia Minor), and Thrace to the jurisdiction of Constantinople.”

Of course the author cites the canon with his usual inexactness, and makes it appear even more illogical and absurd than it really was.

The alleged canon professes to decree and establish the same thing decreed and established by the one hundred and fifty bishops who composed the second council, in their third canon, which, as we have seen, was simply that the bishop of Constantinople should have the primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome, that is the second rank in the church. The canon, therefore, does not deprive the Roman pontiff of his rank, dignity, and authority as primate of the whole church, and therefore did not, as it could not, raise the see of Constantinople to an equal rank and dignity with the see of Rome.

This was never pretended, and is not pretended by the author himself. The council never could, without stultifying itself, have intended any thing of the sort, for it gave to the bishop of Rome the title of “universal bishop,” and it says expressly

“We consider the primacy of all and the chief honor, according to the canons, should be preserved to the most beloved of God, the archbishop of Rome.”2

The non-united Greeks and the author himself concede that the church of Rome was and is the first church in rank and dignity.

Whatever value, then, is to be attached to this twenty-eighth canon it did not and was not designed to affect in any respect the rank, dignity, or authority of the Roman pontiff. What was attempted by it was to erect the non-apostolic see of Constantinople or Byzantium into a patriarchal see, with jurisdiction over the metropolitans of Pontus, Asia Minor, Thrace, and such as should be ordained in barbarous countries, that is, in countries lying beyond the limits of the empire, and to give its bishops the first rank after the patriarch of the West.

It sought to reduce the bishop of Alexandria from the second to the third, and the bishop of Antioch from the third to the fourth rank, but it did not touch the power or authority of either. It violated the rights and privileges of the metropolitans of Pontus, Asia Minor, and Thrace, by subjecting them to a patriarchal jurisdiction from which, by ancient usage, confirmed by the sixth canon of the Council of Nicæa they were exempt.

The real reason this canon is cited

The author relies on this canon because it asserts that the privileges of the see of Rome were granted by the fathers, and granted because Rome was the capital city of the empire. This sustains his position, that the importance the fathers attached to the see of Rome was not because it was the see of Peter, but because it was the see of the capital—a position we showed, in our previous article, to be untenable—and also that the authority exercised by the Roman pontiff over the whole church, which he cannot deny, was not by divine right, but by ecclesiastical right.

But even if this last were so, since there is confessedly no act of the universal church revoking the grant, the power would be legitimate, and the author and his friends the non-united Greeks would be bound by a law of the church to obey the Roman pontiff, and clearly schismatics in refusing to obey him.

But we have seen from St. Cyprian, the author’s own witness, that the primacy was conferred by our Lord himself on the Roman pontiff as the successor of Peter to constitute him the visible centre and source of unity and authority. Besides, a canon, beyond what it decrees or defines, is not authoritative, and it is lawful to dispute the logic of a general council, and even the historical facts it alleges, at least so far as they can be separated from the definition or decree itself. The purpose of the canon of Chalcedon was not to define or decree that the privileges of the see of Rome were granted by the fathers, and because it was the see of the capital of the empire, but to elevate the see of Constantinople to the rank and authority of a patriarchal see, immediately after the see of Rome, and simply assigns this as a reason for doing so; and a very poor reason it was, too, at least in the judgment of St. Leo the Great, as we shall soon see.

But there is something more to be said in regard to this twenty-eighth canon of the Council of Chalcedon.

HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!

As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.

Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.

A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.

You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.

(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)

Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!

Subscribe now

Donate

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

If you enjoyed this article, then why not get it in mug form?

Eastern 'Orthodoxy' Mug

(Now, now, our Eastern “Orthodox” friends, don’t get too stressed. It’s all in good humour. We wish you well, and pray for your good.)

Read Next:

Article I

1. Eastern Orthodoxy? ‘The Schismatic Papacy’ and Guettée’s absurd imposture

2. Eastern Orthodoxy? St Cyprian is not a witness for schism

3. Eastern Orthodoxy? Schism defended with false history

Article II

4. Eastern Orthodox? Why the sixth canon of Nicæa isn’t an argument

5. Eastern Orthodoxy? Rome did not have primacy merely for being the capital city

Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:

• Twitter (The WM Review)

• Father Coleridge Reader

• YouTube

• Telegram

Editors’ Notes

This is the fourth part of a serialisation of Orestes’ Brownson’s engagement with “Eastern Orthodoxy.”

The background of this engagement – including that of the ex-Catholic author Abbé Vladimir (René-François) Guettée and his book The Schismatic Papacy – can be found in the first part:

1. Eastern Orthodoxy? ‘The Schismatic Papacy’ and Guettée’s absurd imposture

The second part addressed Guettée’s surprising attempts to claim St Cyprian of Carthage as evidence for a patristic rejection of papal primacy.

2. Eastern Orthodoxy? St Cyprian is not a witness for schism

In the third part, Brownson addresses Guettée’s misuse of Tertullian, the so-called Apostolic Tradition and the history of the Church.

3. Eastern Orthodoxy? Schism defended with false history

Those parts made up one article; Brownson then proceeded to a second, much longer article. As such, this fourth part is also the first part of the second article.

In this part, then, Brownson addresses an argument, which uses the Council of Nicæa’s sixth canon to argue that the Roman primacy was based on the city’s civil status, rather than the Pope’s divine right. Brownson obliterates this argument in his usual style, trapping the apostate cleric Guettée between the horns of a dilemma, both of which refute him.

Brownson stresses that he is not making a positive case for the Roman Catholic Church, but specifically refuting the appalling and nonsensical arguments proposed by Guettée.

Why bother publishing this old review?

Why bother republishing a nineteenth century review of a nineteenth century book – especially by Orestes Brownson, a man with doctrinal problems of his own?

For a start, because the arguments mounted by the Eastern Orthodox have not significantly changed. As Brownson says at the end of this piece:

“The work is rambling, and made up of details most wearisome to read, and difficult to bring into a shape in which its real value can be brought to the test, but it is a fair specimen in spirit and arrangement of the works written against the Roman and Catholic Church, and contains in some form all that schismatics allege first and last against her.

“We may as well make it our text-book for the discussion as any other.”

Many Catholics continue to be seduced into schism by such arguments – and by a faulty understanding of the contemporary crisis in the Church.

Further, Guettée’s book is still in print, by an “Orthodox” publisher whose catalogue includes a two-volume work titled The Errors of the Latins, The Rise and Fall of the Papacy, and other pro-schism and anti-Catholic works:

In 2024, an “Orthodox” account on Twitter told us that Guettée’s book continues to be popular today:

If Guettée’s book continues to bring the ill-informed into the Photian schism, then Browson’s review and refutation of enduring importance.

As the contemporary “Orthodox” are publishing such works and encouraging Roman Catholics to enter into schism and heresy, they surely cannot complain about us publishing Brownson’s piece in response. We do so in good will, with the hope that they will instead return to the Church of Christ – outside of which there is absolutely no salvation whatsoever.

Subscribe now

Ex-Catholic Guettée proposes an argument based on the sixth canon of Nicæa

Guettée’s ‘The Schismatic Papacy,’ Part 2.1

Orestes Brownson
Originally published as “Guetté’s Papacy Schismatic’1
From The Catholic World, 1867
Published in The Works of Orestes A. Brownson, Vol. VIII
Thorndike Nourse, Deroit, 1884. pp 491-500
Headings and some line breaks added by The WM Review

Introduction: Guettée’s Two Central Claims Against Roman Primacy

M. Guettée, it will be remembered, undertakes to establish two propositions. First:

“The bishop of Rome did not for eight centuries possess the authority of divine right which he has since sought to exercise”

And second,

“The pretension of the bishop of Rome to the sovereignty of divine right over the whole church was the real cause of the division,” or schism between the East and the West.

Summary of the Argument Thus Far

To the first proposition, we have replied, the bishop of Rome is in possession, and it is for the author to prove that he is not rightfully in possession. This he can do only by proving either, first, that no such title by divine right was ever issued; or, second, that it vests in an adverse claimant.

He sets up no adverse claimant, but attempts to make it appear that no such title as is claimed was ever issued. This he attempts to do by showing that the proofs of title usually relied on by Catholic writers are negatived by the Holy Scriptures and the testimony of the fathers and councils of the first eight centuries.

We have seen that he has signally failed so far as the Holy Scriptures and the fathers of the first three centuries are concerned; nay, that instead of proving his proposition, he has by his own witnesses refuted it, and proved that the title did issue, and did vest in St. Peter, and consequently now vests in the bishop of Rome as Peter’s successor.

This alone is enough for us, and renders any further discussion of the first proposition unnecessary. After the testimony of St. Cyprian, who is his own witness, the author really has nothing more to say. He has lost his case. But, ignorant of this, he proceeds in the fourth division of his work to interrogate the fathers and councils of the fourth and fifth centuries, but even less successfully, as we now proceed to show. We only beg the reader to bear in mind that we are not adducing our proofs of the papacy by divine right, but are simply examining the proofs the author adduces against it. We do not put forth the strength of our cause, which is not necessary in the present argument; we are only showing the weakness of the case the author makes against us.

Guettée’s Misinterpretation of the Sixth Canon of Nicaea

The author attempts to devise an argument against the papal authority from the sixth canon of the Council of Nicaea. This canon, as he cites it, reads:

“Let the ancient custom be preserved that exists in Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, that the bishop of Alexandria have authority in all these countries, since that has also passed into a custom for the bishop of Rome. Let the churches at Antioch and in the other provinces preserve also their privileges.”

It must not be supposed that the author cites the canon with any degree of exactness, or faithfully renders it; but let that pass. From this canon two consequences, he contends, necessarily follow. First:

“[That] the council declared that the authority of the bishop of Rome extended over a limited district, like that of the bishop of Alexandria; and second that this authority was only based on usage.” (p. 95.)

But the authority of the bishop of Rome was not in question before the council, for that nobody disputed. “The object of the canon,” the author himself says, pp. 93, 94…

“…was to defend the authority of the bishop of Alexandria against the partisans of Meletius, bishop of Lycopolis, who refused to recognize it in episcopal ordinations… therefore was merely to confirm the ancient customs respecting these ordinations, and, in general, the privileges consecrated by ancient usages.

“Now, according to an ancient custom Rome enjoyed certain prerogatives that no one contested. The council makes use of this fact in order to confirm the similar prerogatives of Alexandria, Antioch, and other churches.”

The question before the council, and which it met by this canon, evidently was not the primacy of the see of Rome—although it would seem from the form in which the papal legate, Paschasinus, quoted it, without contradiction, in the Council of Chalcedon, that the Council of Nicæa took care to reserve that primacy—but certain customary rights, privileges, and dignities which the bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, and some other churches held in common with the bishop of Rome. As the ancient custom was preserved in the Roman church, the council says, so let it be in Alexandria, Antioch, and other churches. The council refers to the custom in Rome as a reason for confirming the similar custom which had obtained elsewhere, and which had been violated by Meletius of Lycopolis in Egypt, and by his partisans.

The Ancient Pattern of Decentralized Church Administration

To understand this, we must recollect that prior to the fall of the great patriarchates of Alexandria and the East, the administration of ecclesiastical affairs was less centralized than at present. Now nearly all, if not all, bishops depend immediately on the Holy See, but in the early ages they depended on it only mediately.

The bishops of a province or of a patriarchate depended immediately on their exarch, metropolitan, or patriarch, and only mediately through him on the bishop of Rome. The appointment or election of the patriarch, and of the exarch or metropolitan of a church independent of any patriarch, as were the churches of Asia Minor, Pontus, and Thrace, needed the papal confirmation, but not their suffragans or the bishops subject to their immediate jurisdiction. The patriarch or metropolitan confirmed their election, ordained or deposed them by his own authority, subject of course to appeal to Rome.

Lycopolis, by ancient custom or canons of the fathers, depended on the bishop of Alexandria, who was its bishop’s immediate superior. For some reason, Meletius, bishop of Lycopolis, had been deposed by the bishop of Alexandria, and deprived of his functions; but he refused to submit, ordained bishops by his own authority, contrary to the ancient custom, and created a schism. It was to meet this case, and others like it, that the council decreed the sixth canon.

Subscribe now

Distinguishing Patriarchal from Papal Authority

The authority confirmed by that canon was the authority of patriarchs, as they were subsequently called, and of metropolitans by usage independent of any patriarchal jurisdiction, and therefore the authority of the bishop of Rome which it recognized as derived from usage, could have been only his authority as metropolitan of the Suburbicarian churches, called the Roman territory, or as patriarch of the West.

That this authority was limited, and dependent on ancient usage or custom, nobody disputes; but this is distinct from his authority as supreme pontiff or governor of the whole church. There are instances enough on record of metropolitan churches, like Aquileia, and those of Illyrium and Bulgaria, disputing their immediate dependence on the bishop of Rome, that never dreamed of calling in question his authority as supreme pontiff, or governor of the whole church.

The schismatic Armenians do not deny and never have denied the supreme authority in the whole church of the bishop of Rome; they only assert that the pope gave to their apostle, Gregory the Illuminator, and to his successors, the independent government of the church in Armenia. St. Cyprian depended on the bishop of Rome, and acknowledged the papal authority, but it is questionable if he depended on him as patriarch of the West. We suspect Carthage was independent of patriarchal jurisdiction, and that St. Cyprian had no superior but the pope.

However this may have been, the fact that churches did not depend immediately on the bishop of Rome did not in any sense deny or impair his universal authority as supreme pontiff. So the argument against the papacy from the sixth canon of the Council of Nicæa, like the author’s other arguments, proves nothing to his purpose.

Guettée’s Self-Defeating Logic Regarding Nicaea’s Authority

M. Guettée, in his blind hatred of Rome, after having alleged the authority of the Council of Nicæa in his own favor, undertakes to prove that it was no council of the church at all, but merely a council of the empire. He labors hard to prove that it was convoked by the Emperor Constantine by virtue of his imperial authority alone, that the emperor presided in its sessions, and confirmed and promulgated its acts.

Does he not see that if it was so, the council had no ecclesiastical authority, and therefore that its acts have no bearing on the question before us? If any thing is certain, it is that the church, as a polity, is independent of the state, and that civil rulers or magistrates, as such, have no authority in her government. Civil rulers have often usurped authority over the church and oppressed her: they did so at Constantinople, as Gregory III complains; they attempted to do so all through the middle ages in the West, and they do so now to a most fearful extent in the Russian Empire, as in all European Protestant states; but the authority they exercise is usurped, and is repugnant to the very nature and constitution of the church. Our Lord said, “My kingdom is not of this world.”

The non-united Greeks as well as Catholics hold that there is and can be no ecumenical council without the bishop of Rome to convoke it, preside over it, and to confirm and promulgate its acts; and hence they confess their inability to hold an ecumenical council, and therefore really acknowledge that they are not the Catholic Church in its integrity, though they claim to hold the orthodox faith.

They admit the Roman church is the primatial see, and that the presidency of a general council belongs to the bishop of Rome by the right and dignity of his see. If he did not preside in the Council of Nicæa in person or by his legates or representatives, and approve formally or virtually its acts, it could not, by their own doctrine have the authority of a general council. The confirmation and promulgation of its canons by the emperor might make them laws or edicts of the empire, but could not make them canons of the church.

The Historical Reality: Rome’s Role in Convening and Ratifying Nicaea

It would be no difficult matter to prove that the author is as much out in his facts as in his inferences. The universal church has recognized the Council of Nicæa as a legitimate council, and there are ample authorities to prove that its convocation and indiction were at the request or with the assent of the Roman pontiff, that he presided over it by his legates, Osius, bishop of Cordova, and Vitus and Vincentius, two Roman presbyters; that he virtually, if not formally, confirmed and published its acts; and that whatever the emperor did was merely executory; but the question is foreign to our present argument, and we have no space to indulge in extraneous or irrelevant discussions.

If we were endeavoring to prove the papacy, we should adduce the proofs; but our line of argument requires us only to refute the reasons the author alleges for asserting that the papacy is schismatic. If the Council of Nicæa was simply an imperial council, we have nothing to do with it; if it was a true general council of the church, it makes nothing for the author, for the sixth canon, the only one relied on, has, as the author cites it, no reference to the jurisdiction of the holy apostolic see of Rome.

HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!

As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.

Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.

A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.

You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.

(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)

Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!

Subscribe now

Donate

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

If you enjoyed this article, then why not get it in mug form?

Eastern 'Orthodoxy' Mug

(Now, now, our Eastern “Orthodox” friends, don’t get too stressed. It’s all in good humour. We wish you well, and pray for your good.)

Read Next:

Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:

• Twitter (The WM Review)

• Father Coleridge Reader

• YouTube

• Telegram

In the lead-up and aftermath of the SSPX episcopal consecrations, I published a number of articles about excommunications, whether those who preach heresy can excommunicate, and a translation of Causa XXIV, Quest. I, from Gratian’s Decretum on this topic. The occasion for these articles was the imminent probability, swiftly confirmed, that the Vatican would declare the SSPX to be excommunicated following the episcopal consecrations.1

This article brings the disparate points together in one place.

Introduction

Around 1140 AD, an Italian monk named Gratian collected and ordered the great mass of canonical legislation which had built up over the centuries before. Prior to the codification of Canon Law in 1917, the Church’s law was considerably less neat and tidy – but Gratian’s work marked the beginning of a new period of order.

This work came to be known as Gratian’s Decree, or Decretum. In some ways similar to Denzinger’s work, Gratian’s Decretum was not an official work, but – as Bouscaren et al. put it – “it was so useful that it soon became the best-known book of canon law.” After Gratian’s death, it was supplemented with other collections, such as the Decretals of Gregory IX, and collections by Boniface VIII, John XXII and others.

The Decretum is far from being solely a book of legislation. It contains many theological texts from magisterial and patristic texts, as well as Gratian’s comments. Its influence is clear, when we consider that these theological texts are cited by theologians, with the references customarily assigned to them in the Decretum.

As already mentioned, the texts cited in the Decretum have their own intrinsic and theological authority, given that they are derived from Popes, saints and fathers. As such, the codification of Canon Law in 1917 – which abrogated various laws which it did not expressly contain – does not touch the theological reasoning and authority of various points cited in the Decretum, or the Decretum’s own witness to the tradition of the Church.

Causa XXIV is no exception. Doctor of the Church St Robert Bellarmine, as well as Cardinal Juan de Turrcremata OP and others, refer to this section of the Decretum, and in particular its canon Audivimus.

This canon, and the discussion as a whole, deals with the question of whether heretics can validly excommunicate non-Catholics.

The C. IV Audivimus

Audivimus (“We have heard”) appears in the second part of the Decretum, in Causa XXIV, Quest. I.

Gratian opens the discussion with the following:

“A certain bishop, having lapsed into heresy, deprived some of his priests of their office and marked them with a sentence of excommunication. After his death he is accused of heresy and condemned, together with his followers and his entire household.

“(Qu. I.) Here it is first asked whether one who has lapsed into heresy can deprive anyone of office or mark them with a sentence [of excommunication].

“(Qu. II.) Secondly, whether anyone can be excommunicated after death.

“(Qu. III.) Thirdly, whether an entire household is to be excommunicated for the sin of one person.”

Audivimus is the fourth canon in Quest. I, which starts with the following statement:

“That someone cannot be deposed or excommunicated by a heretic is easily proved.”

Here is Audivimus itself, which is taken from a letter of Pope Alexander II:

C. IV. [Audivimus] An excommunicated person cannot excommunicate another.

We have heard that Henry, called Archbishop of Ravenna, has attempted to excommunicate you. But since, being excommunicated, he could not excommunicate you, by apostolic authority we command you, absolving you and your people, never to trouble yourselves about it.

Audivimus is immediately followed by Gratian’s commentary. Having already explained at the outset that one who has “lapsed into a heresy already condemned” is condemned by the existing legislation, and cannot condemn others, Gratian also makes clear that the “excommunicated person” in question is especially one excommunicated for heresy.

Gratian also explains the canon in the terms mentioned in c. XXXV and XXXVI below – namely that the inability to excommunicate arises “from the moment [the heretic] began to preach such things” opposed to the faith:

“But if he fabricated a new heresy from his own heart, from the moment he began to preach such things, he could condemn no one – because one who is already prostrate cannot cast down another.

“For the power of binding or loosing was given by the Lord to true priests, not to false ones. For when He was about to say to the Apostles, ‘Whose sins you shall remit,’ etc., He first said, ‘Receive the Holy Ghost,’ so as to show clearly to all that he who does not have the Holy Ghost cannot retain or remit sins. Moreover, no one receives the Holy Ghost except within the Church, because the Spirit Himself creates that very unity through grace.

“§. 1. Whence, ‘Receive the Holy Ghost’ was said only to those gathered together in one place, nor did the Holy Ghost descend on the day of Pentecost except upon those gathered together in one place. And just as He is not received outside the Church, so He effects nothing outside her. Since, therefore, as the Apostle says, the Spirit makes us ask and the Spirit obtains, outside the Church He neither causes us to ask nor to obtain. Whence the Lord, about to say, ‘Whatever you shall ask,’ etc., first said, ‘If two of you shall agree on earth,’ etc. And again: ‘Wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them;’ showing clearly to all that He does not dwell in the hearts of those who, following the singularity of pride, tear themselves away from the structure of the Body of Christ.

“But in those in whom Christ does not dwell, the Holy Ghost, fleeing the divisions of minds, has no place. Since, therefore, to remit or retain sins, to excommunicate or reconcile, is the work of the Holy Ghost and the power of Christ, it is manifest that those who are outside the Church can neither bind nor loose, nor restore to ecclesiastical communion by reconciliation, nor deprive of that fellowship by excommunication – a fellowship which they themselves, polluted by heresy or schism or branded by sentence, are proved to lack entirely. Whence, when the Lord gave to all the disciples equal power of binding and loosing, He promised to Peter, for all and before all, the keys of the kingdom of heaven, saying: ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’

“Whoever, therefore, has been estranged from the unity of the Church (which is understood through Peter), cannot execrate, cannot consecrate; he has no power of excommunication or reconciliation. Whence the Apostle, when he wrote that the fornicator of Corinth was to be excommunicated, said: ‘I indeed, absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged as if present him who has so acted, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, you being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh.’

“In this, showing the form of excommunication, he taught that only a faithful person is to be censured, and only by a faithful person. For in the name of the Lord and with His power cooperating, only a faithful person can effect anything, since no one can say ‘Lord Jesus’ except in the Holy Ghost. Likewise, since the Lord forbids the lamb to be eaten outside the Catholic Church, those who by their profession of faith are estranged from her are not expelled from a participation which they abandoned of their own will, but are allowed to depart – just as those who, hearing ‘Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood,”’etc., said: ‘This is a hard saying, and who can hear it?’ and so went away backwards, not repelled but allowed to depart.

“Hence also the Apostle, when treating of those to be excommunicated, prefaced his words with: ‘If anyone who is called a brother;’ but regarding unbelievers he added, saying: ‘Those who are outside, God will judge.’ But regarding those who are within, He has committed judgment to us. Just as it is apparent from the Apostle’s word “brother,” and from what he added concerning believers and unbelievers, that only a believer is to be excommunicated, so from the fact that this is written only to the faithful – or rather, because just as he who blesses is greater than him who is blessed, so he who curses by office is greater than him who is cursed – it is perfectly clear that he who departs from the integrity of the Catholic faith has no power whatsoever of malediction or benediction.

“For he cannot curse a Catholic, since the Catholic is his superior; nor can he pass sentence upon one estranged from the faith, as upon one equal to himself.

“Now these things which have been said about heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated persons – namely, that they do not have the power of binding or loosing – are proved by the authorities of many.”2

Other authorities in Causa XXIV, Quest. I

Gratian proceeds to present many other authorities and comments about the status of the Roman Church, which can be found in the full text. However, nearly thirty canons later, he returns to the same subject again:

C. XXXI. Heretics utterly lack the power of sacred office.

Likewise Cyprian, greeting Magnus his son [Book I, Letter 6].

We say that absolutely all heretics and schismatics possess nothing of power or right.

For this reason Novatian neither ought nor can be exempted from himself being counted among the adversaries and antichrists, since he stands outside the Church and acts against the peace and love of Christ. […]

Gratian also presents a canon which relate to the heretic Nestorius. In the 420s AD, Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, preached the first of his sermons against the term Theotokos, or Mother of God – denying its legitimacy in reference to Our Lady. These sermons caused an outcry, notably from the layman Eusebius, who denounced Nestorius in the church. Eusebius later became a bishop, and a saint.

Similarly, St Hypatius also ceased naming Nestorius in the diptychs of the Mass – whilst maintaining communion with Bishop Eulalius, who disagreed with this course of action.3

Nestorius proceeded to excommunicate and depose those who opposed him (as well as use physical violence against them). Monks of Constantinople approvingly reported to the emperors that the populace had come to exclaim:

“We have an emperor, but we do not have a bishop.”4

Nestorius was later condemned by the Council of Ephesus. In response to the excommunications and depositions, Pope St. Celestine was reported as teaching, on more than one occasion, that “from the time (Nestorius and his allies) began to preach (their errors),” they were unable to excommunicate or depose anyone. These texts are included in the Decretum and, as is clear from the subtitles, reaffirmed by Pope St Nicholas the Great.

C. XXXV. From the moment a bishop teaches things contrary to the faith, he cannot despoil another.

Likewise Pope Nicholas writes to the Emperor Michael [Letter VII].

Pope Celestine says, writing to the Eastern bishops:

“If anyone has been excommunicated or stripped of the dignity of bishop or cleric by Bishop Nestorius, or by others who follow him, from the time they began to preach such things, it is manifest that this person has persisted and does persist in our communion; and we do not consider him removed, because the sentence of one who had already shown himself deserving of removal could not remove anyone.”

C. XXXVI. Those who are excommunicated by heretics are not to be considered excommunicated.

The same [Pope Celestine], to the Clergy of Constantinople.

“The authority of our See,” he says, “has openly decreed that no bishop, nor cleric, nor anyone of any Christian profession, who has been cast down from communion or from his position by Nestorius or those like him, from the time they began to preach such things, is to be regarded as having been cast out or excommunicated; but all of these continue to this day in our communion, because one who wavered in preaching such things could not cast down or remove anyone.

“Do you understand, Emperor, from the above-mentioned authorities, that those who had themselves long since been removed could not remove – I will not say their own superior – but anyone at all; nor could those already prostrate cast down anyone else?”5

St Cyril of Alexandria also refers to these letters in one of his own letters to Nestorius:

“With all those who have been excommunicated or deposed by your devoutness on account of the faith, both laymen and clergy, all of us are in communion, for it is not right that those committed to orthodox tenets should be wronged by your verdicts, because they acted admirably in opposing you; this fact you mentioned in the letter you wrote to our colleague the most holy Celestine bishop of great Rome.”6

It might be objected that Nestorius was later condemned by the Council of Ephesus and the Pope, and that for this reason a declaration is necessary in order for “the layman in the pew” to realise that a given person lacks the ability to excommunicate. But on the contrary, St Eusebius was a “layman in the pew”, and denounced Nestorius in Church – and his memory is glorious for this act.

Further, Pope St Celestine said specifically that Nestorius lacked the ability to excommunicate and depose “from the moment” he began preaching his heresies – rather than at some later date, or upon an official intervention. Gratian and those whom he cites also place great stress on “the moment” at which the person “began to preach” his heresies. It is from this “moment” that the inability arises, rather than at some later date, or upon an official intervention. This objection is essentially a denial of what Pope St Celestine et al. said; and these texts were taken up by the tradition of the Church in the way described in this argument.

Therefore, the objection falls.

Other theologians addressing these authorities

How have the great theologians of the Church have understood the texts cited above?

St Thomas Aquinas set out the principle, without reference to Gratian. He wrote:

“[T]he power of jurisdiction is that which is conferred by a mere human appointment. Such a power as this does not adhere to the recipient immovably: so that it does not remain in heretics and schismatics; and consequently they neither absolve nor excommunicate, nor grant indulgence, nor do anything of the kind, and if they do, it is invalid.

“Accordingly when it is said that such like persons [schismatics] have no spiritual power, it is to be understood as referring either to the second power [viz., jurisdictional], or if it be referred to the first power [viz., sacramental], not as referring to the essence of the power, but to its lawful use.”7

The fourtheenth century Dominican William Peter de Godino OP, in his Tractatus de causa immediata ecclesiastice potestatis (often attributed to Peter de Paludanus OP) recognised the application of the principle in question, citing Causa XXIV and Audivimus. In his defence of the premise Christ did not confer any power of jurisdiction upon the other Apostles apart from Peter, he wrote:

“Fifthly, neither through the sacerdotal power of consecrating [the Eucharist], which they received at the Supper, because even a degraded cleric, a schismatic, and a heretic possesses that power, and all of them truly confect the Body of Christ, among whom nevertheless there is no power of jurisdiction.

“Because they cannot loose or bind, as is said in 24 q. 1 Audivimus (Gratian, C.24 q.1 c.4), where it reads: ‘Those who are outside the Church can neither bind nor loose’ – yet they can confect true sacraments, as Augustine says Contra Faustum, and it is found in q. 4, Quid faciat (Gratian, C.23 q.4 c.25).”8

St Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, refers to C. XXXV and XXXVI (citing Pope St Celestine) in his treatment of the “heretical pope” question as part of his case for the fifth opinion. They form part of his evidence that “the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are “ipso facto” deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity.”

He also refers to these texts and C. IV Audivimus in his tome De Ecclesia, in which he discusses the differences between open and secret heretics:

“Next the same thing [viz. that secret heretics remain members of the Church] is proven from the testimonies of those Fathers who teach in a common consensus that those who are outside the Church have no authority or jurisdiction in the Church. Moreover, right reason manifestly teaches the same thing: By what arrangement can it be devised or imagined that one might have jurisdiction and hence be the head of the Church, who is not a member of the Church? Whoever heard of a head which was not a member?

“Moreover it is certain, whatever one or another might think, a secret heretic, if he might be a Bishop, or even the Supreme Pontiff, does not lose jurisdiction, nor dignity, or the name of the head in the Church, until either he separates himself publicly from the Church, or being convicted of heresy is separated against his will; for this reason, Celestine and Nicholas say (loc. cit.) that a heretical Bishop, to the extent that he began to preach heresy, could bind and loose no one although without a doubt if he had already conceived the error, were it before he began to preach publicly, he could still bind and loose.

“The fact is likewise confirmed from the canon Audivimus, 24, quaest. 1, where we read: ‘But if he will have devised a new heresy in their heart, to the extent that he begins to preach such things, he can condemn no man.’”9

Merely misspeaking or erring in good faith is most probably not sufficient for the man to become unable to excommunicate. But provided the preacher is not simply misspeaking, or speaking under correction, this “moment” at which he “began to preach” is when the heresy is externalized in a public fashion, and thus the moment at which the previously secretly heretical member of the Church becomes a non-Catholic and loses his office.10

Before Bellarmine, Cardinal Juan de Turrecremata (Torquemada) OP also referred to Audivimus (and the wider Causa XXIV, and a later gloss on its C. I, Achatius) in the context of a heretic “pope” ceasing to be Pope:

“Fourthly, this is gathered from the same St Thomas in the fourth book, distinction 19, where he states that if the pope falls into heresy he becomes less than any of the faithful whatsoever. And the Gloss on cap. Achatius, 24 quaest. 1, has the same, saying thus: ‘This is the case in which a pope can bind a pope, in which the pope falls under a canon of latae sententiae.’ Nor does the rule stand against this: an equal cannot loose or bind an equal; because if the pope is a heretic, insofar as he is a heretic he is less than any Catholic. So says the Gloss.

“Fifthly, this appears to be gathered from many chapters in the Decree: such as from cap. Quod autem, and cap. Achatius, and cap. Audivimus, 24 quaest. 1; whence in cap. Audivimus it is expressly stated: ‘But if he has devised in his heart a new heresy, from the moment he began to preach such things, he was unable to condemn anyone, because he who is already cast down cannot cast down another.’ Likewise from cap. Omnis qui recedit et non permanet in doctrina Christi, etc., cap. cau. et quaest., and from cap. Didicimus, in the same place, where blessed Cyprian says thus: ‘We say that all heretics and schismatics whatsoever have no power or right.’ Likewise from 6, with these authorities, in the same cause and question, where it is stated thus: ‘By these authorities it is plainly shown that from the moment anyone begins to teach anything against the faith, he can neither cast down nor condemn anyone.’

“Whence, properly speaking, a pope is not deposed by a council on account of heresy, but rather is declared not to be pope, when it is shown that he has fallen into heresy and perseveres in it obstinately and incorrigibly. Whence the Gloss on cap. 1, extra, De schismaticis, on the word careant firmitate, says: ‘Because when the Church has a heretical or schismatic pastor, it is understood to be vacant,’ above, De praescrip., cap. 1. But that one who has pertinaciously fallen into heretical depravity is deprived ipso iure of all ecclesiastical power, we shall show more fully, God helping, in the fourth book of this work, when the discussion concerns heretics.”11

He makes the same argument in Book IV, Part II, Chapter XVIII:

“Sixthly, to the same effect there is c. Achatius, C. 24, q. 1, where Gelasius says that whosoever falls into a heresy once condemned involves himself in its condemnation. The gloss says: ‘Here is a case in which a pope can bind a pope, in which the pope falls under a sentence latae sententiae. Nor does the rule oppose this — ‘an equal cannot loose or bind an equal’ — because if the pope is a heretic, in that he is a heretic he is less than any Catholic” (C. 12, q. 1, Scimus, § Promulgator), ‘because the law marks the deed even without a sentence’ (cf. Dig., De ritu nupt., l. Palam, § ult.).

“Seven, to the same effect, in c. 2 Achatius, § Si ergo, it says thus: ‘If therefore that bishop fell into a condemned heresy, one who is condemned by an established excommunication cannot condemn others; for an excommunicated person cannot excommunicate others.’

“Eight, to the same effect there is c. Audivimus, where it says thus: ‘If however he has devised a new heresy in his heart, from the moment he began to preach such things he could condemn no one, because one who is already prostrate cannot cast down another.’

“Nine, [sic; continuing from Audivimus] to the same effect is what is read at the end of the same chapter, where it says thus: ‘It is clear that he who has departed from the integrity of the Catholic faith has in no wise the power of cursing or blessing — inasmuch as he who cannot curse one superior to himself cannot pass sentence upon one who, as an alien from the faith, is as it were his equal.’”

We see here that the inability of the preacher of heresy to excommunicate rests on the fact that he is not the superior of the Catholic. Although the inability to excommunicate is the more fundamental fact, and can perhaps be accepted whilst continuing to hold that the preacher remains the superior of a Catholic in some sense, the loss of office and jurisdiction appears to be the most consistent way of explaining it.

The seventeenth century moral theologian Juan Azor SJ, also referred to the principle and Audivimus in the following terms:

“It is asked, first, whether the Roman Pontiff who has fallen into heresy loses the Pontifical power by right.

“[T]he Church is the congregation of the faithful, c. Ecclesia, de consec. dist. 1; therefore a heretic is outside the Church, and consequently is not reckoned a member of the Church. How, then, can he be head of the Church who is not a member of the Church?

“Finally, the same conclusion appears to be deduced from c. Quod autem, c. Achasius, c. Audivimus, 24. q. 1; c. Omnis qui recedit, c. Didicimus, and § His auctoribus, same cause and question — in which places it is laid down that heretics possess no right and no power; and because a heretic is excommunicated by divine right, according to those words of Christ the Lord: ‘Let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican’ (Matt. 18:17), if he will not hear the Church.”

Azor himself leaned towards what he treated as the second opinion – which Bellarmine would have called the “fourth” – namely, “that a Pope who has become a heretic is removed from his power and the dignity of jurisdiction by divine right; rather, he is to be removed.” However, Azor held that the principle in question, and the authorities in Causa XXIV, pointed towards an ipso facto loss of office by heretics.

Azor’s text is reproduced in the works of the nineteenth century canonists Eugène Roquette de Malvies and D. Craisson to the same effect.12 Although these men also leaned towards the “fourth position” (viz. that the heretic Pope should be deposed), they followed Azor in treating Audivimus, and the principle in question, as evidence for an ipso facto loss of office.

Cardinal Billot’s comments

Finally, Louis Cardinal Billot referred to this matter in his treatment of why occult heretics remain members of the Church. In the course of this treatment, he distinguished occult heretics from manifest heretics with reference to letters included in Gratian’s Decretum:

“Finally, there is one last argument. For someone outside the body of the Church is made incapable by that very fact of any ordinary jurisdiction, such as that of a bishop.”

At this point, as an aside, Billot adds the following footnote:

“Note how I said deliberately, ‘all ordinary jurisdiction’; for the same does not apply to extraordinary jurisdiction or that which is merely delegated in a case of necessity, as is obvious to anyone who thinks about it.”

He continues in the body of the text:

“The reason is that he who has ordinary jurisdiction, even episcopal jurisdiction, has the dignity of the head, and no one can be the head even of a particular church, if he is not a member of the Church. For what was ever a head which was not a member? For even though not every member is a head, nevertheless every head is a member. Hence, if secret heresy placed a man outside the Church, someone could have a doubt about the legitimacy and authority of the shepherds, as often as he did not have moral certitude about their internal faith. But let it not be said that an institution of Christ could ever handle such a great inconvenience, which would break every strand of discipline.

“And we are not only using arguments of probability here, because we are taught clearly and emphatically that a bishop does not lose his own power of binding and loosing on account of heresy, unless he preaches heresy and professes it openly. On this fact there is among other documents the letter of Pope Celestine to the clergy and people of Constantinople in the case of Nestorius, when the pope first encouraged the Catholics to fight bravely for the faith, to endure sufferings patiently, and not to fear exile. He said,

‘No Christian should weep over his temporal exile, because none of them are an exile before God. Let us fear lest we be exiled from the land of the living, that is, that which we want to be our homeland. That is our home, our perpetual, eternal home. For the place we leave from is not our home, but rather that one which certain hope promises us.’

“Then, after he declares to be void the sentence by which Nestorius had cast out several people either from their office or from the communion of the faithful, he continues:

‘But lest his sentence be considered to have had any force even for a short time, being the sentence of a man who had already brought down the divine sentence upon himself, the authority of our See declares openly that no one, whether bishop or cleric or Christian of any profession who was cast out of his place or from communion by Nestorius or those like him, from the time they began to preach such things, should be considered to be cast out or excommunicated. But all of these have been in — and remain to this moment — in our communion, because someone who preaches foolishly such things cannot cast down or remove anyone.’”

He adds another footnote:

“Pope Celestine, epist. 14, n. 7 (Migne, Patr. Lat. Tom. 50). — See also epist. 12 of the same Celestine to John of Antioch, n. 2: ‘If anyone was either excommunicated by the bishop Nestorius or his followers, from the time they began to preach those things, or as a bishop or priest was stripped of his dignity, it is manifest that such a one remained in our communion and still remains thus, etc.’”

He continues:

“So you see that a bishop who is secretly a heretic still enjoys the power of binding and loosing, while he loses the episcopal jurisdiction and power of excommunicating only from the time he begins to preach heresy publicly. So, the conclusion is evident. For if someone who is not in the Church cannot have authority over the Church, and a secret heretic can have authority – and sometimes does in fact have it – it follows evidently that a secret heretic is not yet cut out of the body of the Church.”

Application to our time

In short, Gratian’s comment provides modern Catholics with everything they need to combat the modernists occupying our structures, and preaching heresy.

However, while the theological principles behind this ancient canon and its commentary are easily applicable to Leo XIV, his colleagues, and his predecessors, it is incumbent on those allegedly excommunicated to make the argument – viz., to insist that it applies to these men as preachers of heresy, and not simply to seek refuge in arguments about “the salvation of souls” or “unjust excommunications.”

It is not even slightly difficult to establish that Leo XIV preaches heresy. Leaving aside the question of Vatican II and his post-conciliar predecessors, Leo XIV preached heresy before the May 2025 conclave (along with taking part in Pachamama worship), and the period since has featured a constant series of denials of the Catholic faith, including:

• Alleging that a unity of faith exists with heretics, and communion with Muslims

• Denying the legitimacy of the death penalty (which he also did on several occasions prior to his election)

• Praising the interreligious prayer meeting of Assisi in 1986, and the Abu Dhabi declaration

• Denying the dogma Outside the Church there is no salvation through his endorsement of his predecessor’s error of the “ecumenism of blood”

• Praising Fiducia Supplicans and Amoris Laetitia

• Denying the immutability of Catholic dogma, by countenancing the possibility of changes if “attitudes” change

• Presenting a naturalistic vision for world politics, along with errors condemned by previous Popes

• Preaching the undiluted doctrine of modernism very soon after his election, with what appear to be many deliberate allusions to Pope St. Pius X’s condemnation of the heresy.

The SSPX recently released a 154-point Profession of Faith, which contains points denied by Leo XIV and his recent predecessors. The very purpose of such a document is to respond to the preaching of heresy.

In short, neither Leo XIV, nor his colleagues, nor his recent predecessors, are capable of excommunicating anyone. No-one who considers Amoris Laetitia, Fiducia Supplicans, and all the rest to be manifest departures from the faith has any reason to be scrupulous about excommunications levelled by men such as Leo XIV; and scrupulous is precisely what such anxieties are. It is irrational to condemn the heretical teaching and laws of the Conciliar/Synodal Church on the one hand, and then on the other hand respect the excommunications and sanctions of its teachers and legislators.

But while it is easy to establish that these men are preachers of heresy, some shrink from doing so – perhaps because of the implications of such an assertion, or previous rejections of the possibility of establishing heresy without a declaration from authority. For this reason, they cut themselves off from recourse to this argument.

And yet we can note that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was not afraid to make this argument in advance of his own “excommunication” in 1988.

The witness of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988

In a press conference on 15 June 1988, Archbishop Marcel Lefevbvre expressed the same argument. At the end of an explanation of the rationale behind the episcopal consecrations, he said:

The Osservatore Romano will probably publish the excommunication, a declaration of schism, naturally. What does all that mean?

Bon. Excommunication by whom?

By a modernist Rome. By a Rome which no longer fully holds the Catholic faith, which no longer thinks in a Catholic way, which no longer acts in a Catholic way.

One cannot say that when there is a gathering such as Assisi, one is still Catholic. It is not possible. One cannot say that, when there is Kyoto, and the declarations which were made to the Jews at the Synagogue, and the ceremony which took place at Santa Maria in Trastevere last year, no? In the heart of Rome! C’est scandaleux, absolumment scandaleux. It is not Catholic any more.

So we are excommunicated, by the modernists: by the people who have been condemned by the previous popes.

Alors, what could that really do to us? We are condemned by people who are themselves condemned, because they are people who should condemned publicly. Alors, it is indifferent to us. It hasn’t, it has no value, obviously.

Declaration of schism. Schism with what? Schism with the Pope, successor of Peter? Non.

Schism with the modernist Pope? Oui.

Schism with the ideas which the Pope spreads everywhere – the ideas of the Revolution, modern ideas, no? Oui. We are in schism with that. We do not accept it, of course.

It is possible to watch his frank and matter of fact delivery of this argument in the following video:

As Lefebvre noted, there is indeed a schism; but the schism on the side of those who are adhering the heresies and the new, false religion of Vatican II. He himself said in 1987:

“Schism?” retorted the Archbishop. “If there is a schism, it is because of what the Vatican did at Assisi and how you replied to our Dubia: the Church is breaking with the traditional Magisterium. But the Church against her past and her Tradition is not the Catholic Church; this is why being excommunicated by a liberal, ecumenical, and revolutionary Church is a matter of indifference to us.”

This explanation has nothing to do with “grave fear” or canonical loopholes. It is also completely clear: the problem is on the side of the Vatican. While one might wish that the Archbishop had simply stated the illegitimacy of its occupants, he certainly stated the principle which we have been defending, and he was certainly the one on the offensive.13

By contrast, it is a temptation, when dealing with situations like the excommunications of the SSPX, for Catholics to adopt a legalistic mentality and search for canonical technicalities as the basis of ignoring these penalties. In so doing, they forget two key points.

First, few are convinced by such arguments. Generally, such arguments only convince those who want to be convinced; they are also complicated, and can lack certainty. Without an authoritative repeal or quashing of the sentence, all the legal loopholes in the world would remain insufficient and unconvincing to most men.

Second, even if these arguments held, the presumption is in favour of the superior. If, as many hold, Leo XIV is the true Pope, and his officers hold authority, then they enjoy the benefit of the doubt.

Third, such technicalities ultimately do not matter. Consider the following from Pope Pius IX in Quartus Supra:

“For any man to be able to prove his Catholic faith and affirm that he is truly a Catholic, he must be able to convince the Apostolic See of this. For this See is predominant and with it the faithful of the whole Church should agree. And the man who abandons the See of Peter can only be falsely confident that he is in the Church.”

“All these traditions dictate that whoever the Roman Pontiff judges to be a schismatic for not expressly admitting and reverencing his power must stop calling himself Catholic.”

“Most men feel that the Church’s supreme head and shepherd should decide who are Catholics and who are not.”

If the Roman Pontiff, or those whom he delegates to act on his behalf, declares that a man or group is excommunicated, or in schism, and sets up legal machinery reflective of this for the rest of those subject to him, then such legalistic arguments are to no avail.

This is the additional problem caused around the disputed force of unjust and invalid excommunications.

Unjust excommunications should be feared

St Thomas Aquinas taught the following of an unjust excommunication:

“[I]f the error on the part of the sentence be such as to render the sentence void, this has no effect, for there is no excommunication; but if the error does not annul the sentence, this takes effect, and the person excommunicated should humbly submit (which will be credited to him as a merit), and either seek absolution from the person who has excommunicated him, or appeal to a higher judge. If, however, he were to contemn the sentence, he would ipso facto sin mortally.”14

Before publishing these article, the canon lawyer Mr Marc Balestrieri (who also assisted with finding the best edition of Gratian) drew my attention to the following by the sixteenth century Dominican Bartolomeo Fumo:

“Excommunication, even if it be unjust – so long as it is not null,15 and even if it ought to be annulled – is to be feared, according to Petrus] de Paludanus (4. sent., dist. 18. q. 1. art. 3). [This is so] whether it be unjust on the part of the excommunicated person, who is innocent, or on the part of the one excommunicating, who does not issue it from zeal for justice but from hatred or some other bad motive, or on the part of the procedure, because it proceeded by false witnesses, or without a warning, or the like.

“And he who should despise it would sin mortally on account of disobedience to the Church and would incur the penalties of the law; and then it is just. Absolution is therefore to be sought, and [the excommunication] is to be observed.

“But if it is entirely null, and by not observing it no scandal follows, it is neither to be feared nor to be observed. If, however, by not observing it scandal follows for others, it is to be observed on account of the scandal. But if it is unjust but secret, see what is said under the actual effect of excommunication.”16

These principles are confirmed by the magisterium of the Church. Consider the following proposition of the English heretic John Wycliffe, condemned in the letter Super periculosis of 1377:

“A curse or excommunication does not bind absolutely except when it is given against an opponent of the law of Christ.” (DH 1131)

The same document condemned the following:

“Excommunication by the pope or by any prelate is not to be feared, because it is the censure of the Antichrist.” (DH 1180)

Wycliffe, like the Protestants who followed him, believed the papacy to be an Antichrist institution. Notwithstanding certain comments made by Lefebvre about recent claimants being “antichrists”, this is clearly not what the SSPX believe.

In 1418, Pope Martin V confirmed a decree condemning a number of propositions of John Hus. The erroneous propositions included the following:

17. A priest of Christ who lives according to his law, knows Scripture, and has a desire to edify the people ought to preach, notwithstanding an alleged excommunication. And farther on: if the pope or any superior orders a priest so disposed not to preach, the subordinate ought not to obey.

18. Whoever enters the priesthood receives a binding duty to preach; and this mandate ought to be carried out, notwithstanding an alleged excommunication. (DH 1217–8)

Pope Clement XI also condemned the following propositions of the Janesnists in the Bull Unigenitus:

91. The fear of an unjust excommunication should never hinder us from fulfilling our duty; never are we separated from the Church, even when by the wickedness of men we seem to be expelled from her, as long we are attached to God, to Jesus Christ, and to the Church herself by charity. —Jn 9:22-23.

92. To suffer in peace an excommunication and an unjust anathema rather than betray truth is to imitate St. Paul; it is far from rebelling against authority or destroying unity. —Rom 9:3 (DH nn. 2491–2)

The global censure given he gave to the various condemned propositions is as follows:

“We declare, condemn, and reject ... the preceding propositions, as the case may be, as false, fraudulent, evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, pernicious, rash, injurious to the Church and her practice, insulting not only to the Church but also the secular powers, seditious, impious, blasphemous, suspect of heresy, and having the flavor of heresy itself, and, besides, favoring heretics and heresies and also schisms, erroneous, close to heresy, many times condemned, and finally heretical, clearly renewing many heresies respectively and most especially those that are contained in the infamous propositions of Jansen and, indeed, accepted in that sense in which these have been condemned.” (DH 2502)

Pope Pius IX later referred to these condemned errors in the following terms:

“[The ‘neo-schismatics’] follow the example of heretics of more recent times. They argue that the sentence of schism and excommunication pronounced against them by the Archbishop of Tyana, the Apostolic Delegate in Constantinople, was unjust, and consequently void of strength and influence. They have claimed also that they are unable to accept the sentence because the faithful might desert to the heretics if deprived of their ministration. These novel arguments were wholly unknown and unheard of by the ancient Fathers of the Church. For ‘the whole Church throughout the world knows that the See of the blessed Apostle Peter has the right of loosing again what any pontiffs have bound, since this See possesses the right of judging the whole Church, and no one may judge its judgment.’

“The Jansenist heretics dared to teach such doctrines as that an excommunication pronounced by a lawful prelate could be ignored on a pretext of injustice. Each person should perform, as they said, his own particular duty despite an excommunication. Our predecessor of happy memory Clement XI in his constitution Unigenitus against the errors of Quesnell forbade and condemned statements of this kind. These statements were scarcely in any way different from some of John Wyclif’s which had previously been condemned by the Council of Constance and Martin V.

“Through human weakness a person could be unjustly punished with censure by his prelate. But it is still necessary, as Our predecessor St. Gregory the Great warned, ‘for a bishop’s subordinates to fear even an unjust condemnation and not to blame the judgment of the bishop rashly in case the fault which did not exist, since the condemnation was unjust, develops out of the pride of heated reproof.’

“But if one should be afraid even of an unjust condemnation by one’s bishop, what must be said of those men who have been condemned for rebelling against their bishop and this Apostolic See and tearing to pieces as they are now doing by a new schism the seamless garment of Christ, which is the Church?” (Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra, n. 10. 1873.)

In short, unjust excommunications are not without effect – and, for similar reasons, even invalid declaratory sentences by legitimate authority also have real consequences, and (all things being equal) must be observed until they are repealed.17

This is not the case, however, for those issued by preachers of heresy, as is clear from the authorities cited throughout this article. The simple, straightforward argument presented – based on unimpeachable authorities, and expressed by Archbishop Lefebvre himself – is manifestly sufficient to explain why the Vatican’s interventions are without force, and why they should be disregarded (viz. not observed).

It has become clear, however, that many associated with these excommunications prefer to have recourse to the canonical arguments, and to prescind from the argument presented here.

Summary of the argument

As we arrive at the end of this survey, we can summarise our argument relevance for the Society of St Pius X – or anyone else excommunicated by modernists.

1. The idea that one should simply ignore an unjust excommunication, and continue to fulfil one’s duties for the salvation of souls, seems to be condemned by the Church. The same also seems to apply to unjust declaratory sentences. All things being equal, it appears to be necessary to treat even invalid or unjust declaratory and condemnatory sentences as valid until such time as they can be overturned (although this duty would seem to be a question of prudence, and to turn on the facts.)

2. However, the preacher of heresy does not have the power to excommunicate; he also seems to be deprived of the power to issue declaratory sentences of automatic excommunications

3. It would appear that the SSPX could have recourse to the principle discussed in this article: that the preachers of heresy cannot excommunicate Catholics.

4. But to have recourse to this principle, it would be necessary to assert that Leo XIV et al. are indeed preachers of heresy, at least in some sense.

5. The heresy preached is not even slightly difficult to establish, but it may be difficult for some to hold, given the implications.

6. The implications are made clear in Gratian’s Decretum: “he cannot curse a Catholic, since the Catholic is his superior” (comment on C. IV); this is because “heretics utterly lack the power of sacred office” (C. XXXI); they are also not “able to have the weight of ecclesiastical authority against those same persons” (Comment at C. XXXVII).

7. The Church’s theologians – including St Robert Bellarmine and Cardinal Juan de Turrecremata – make the same point, and explain further: the heretic cannot excommunicate a Catholic because he is not a Catholic, has lost jurisdiction, and has no authority.

As should be clear, none of this constitutes a canonical argument on behalf of anyone excommunicated by the modernist Vatican – not least because a canonical argument would have to have reference to the Code of Canon Law, rather than the Decretum of Gratian and the theologians. It also prescinds from the legitimacy of the episcopal consecrations in question, and deals only with the effects of authoritative sentences. Further, it is a theological argument, based on the underlying theological principles expressed by the authorities in the Decretum.

Does this involve saying the preacher is a heretic, or has lost office?

Based on the authorities cited above, I concluded the following a previous article about the SSPX excommunications:

“[S]uch an argument would only make sense on behalf of the SSPX if they wish to recognise that Leo XIV is a heretic – and accept the consequences of such a conclusion.

“Without such a recognition, it is difficult to see how they could consistently disregard a positive condemnation of excommunication from him and those whom he has putatively empowered.”

I stand by this. However, there are a number of points to observe. First, let us note how these authorities proceed.

• The tradition enshrined in the Decretum – that heretics cannot excommunicate – is the primary fact, and the primary certainty. It is the datum used to reach other conclusions.

• The conclusion that this inability is based on a loss of office is an explanation of that primary fact, and it is based on subsequent reasoning.

I believe that this reasoning is correct, and that we can and should follow St Robert Bellarmine and the others in their interpretation.

However, we must acknowledge that terms like “jurisdiction” admitted of a variety of different terms, and that as a result, these texts are sometimes explained in ways that appear to contradict Bellarmine’s interpretation. For example, Gratian himself states that “both powers” – viz. that the power of baptising and the power of office – remain in heretics.”18 He also states that “the power of office is one thing, and its execution another”, and that sometimes the latter is taken away without the former.

St Thomas appears to say something similar in IV Sentences (D18. Q2. A2. Q3. Resp. 1), stating that an excommunicate “does not lose his jurisdiction, nevertheless he loses the use of his jurisdiction.”19

Confusion arises from passages such as this, because terms like power, jurisdiction and the keys can sometimes be used interchangeably, and sometimes with quite distinct meanings. By way of example, in the second reply of the same question (D18. Q2. A2. Q3. Resp. 2), St Thomas writes:

“To consecrate follows on the power of the character, which is indelible… but it is different with excommunication, which follows on jurisdiction, which can be taken away and bound.”20

If jurisdiction meant the same thing in both replies, St Thomas would be contradicting himself within a matter of lines – affirming that the excommunicated does not lose his jurisdiction in one, and then that he does lose it in the next. But while he is not contradicting himself, this shows the importance of paying attention to the use of the terms in question.

Further, Rev. Joaquin M. Alonso CMF explains that St Thomas’ concept of jurisdiction “does not exactly coincide with that of contemporary canonists and ecclesiologists”,21 and that the Angelic Doctor sometimes employs the term jurisdiction or power of office to indicate a radical capacity for jurisdiction (which, being rooted in Holy Orders, cannot be lost), or the exercise of jurisdiction.22

What can we take from this, with regards to the question at hand?

Conclusion: Application of the principle is not restricted to ‘sedevacantists’

The conclusion that someone like Leo XIV has no power to excommunicate rests on the recognition that he preaches heresy, and is not the superior of any Catholic. If one wishes to claim that he is one’s superior in spite of this preaching of heresy, one must argue that only the power to excommunicate is restricted – and this is not the argument followed by the Church’s doctors and theologians.

However, it would be understandable that some may accept the principle that heretics cannot excommunicate, without concluding that heretics have lost office. It would also understandable that some will hold that merely expressing heretical ideas – even if by mistake, or in good faith – is enough to deprive someone of the ability to excommunicate, without the “excommunicator” being personally heretical.

I follow St Robert Bellarmine’s thesis, is that the heretic lacks the ability to excommunicate because he is “deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity.” I think that any conclusion other than the vacant See is mistaken, and inconsistent with the logic of the argument. I think that any other explanation will ultimately lead to contradictions with truths that must be held, and to absurdities.

But while inconsistency might be a mark of error, there is no “Consistency Police Force”; and if there was, my personal views would not be the standard which it would enforce.

I do not make this concession out of any uncertainty of the conclusion. I am merely making clear that the fundamental certainty is that Leo XIV et al. cannot excommunicate, and that this explanation is based on subsequent arguments; arguments which I believe to be certain, but of a lower degree of certainty than what is established by the authorities cited. I would rather see people hold to the fundamental principle in an inconsistent way, than to reject it – especially if this drives them back to the arms of the modernists.

Nonetheless, as already stated, the line being pursued (at least for now) is one which considers Leo XIV and his Vatican as having the ability to excommunicate and issue declaratory sentences, and bases itself on canonical recourse, defensive legal reasoning, and even an organisation’s supposed right to consecrate bishops.

One may hope that this changes, if and when the canonical routes fail. In the meantime, it is regrettable. On the one hand, “the best defence is a good offence”; on the other, the world very badly needs to hear “a spade called a spade” – namely, that Leo XIV and his collaborators are not simply “bad fathers” who give stones, serpents and scorpions – but preachers of heresy.

Subscribe now

Postscript: Answers to objections

Since these articles have been published, a few misunderstandings or objections have been presented.

Obj. 1. If this argument was true, anyone could invent an accusation of heresy against a prelate, and thus do whatever he wanted to do. This would be chaos, and therefore it is wrong.

Resp. 1. Such hypothetical consequences are not refutations. Further, we are already living in chaos, and this chaos is principally caused by those who have treated these men as if they have papal authority. Finally, anybody who denies that these men have been preaching heresies for the last sixty years, and compares this to someone inventing an accusation, demonstrates that they are living on another planet.

Obj. 2. The layman has no authority to declare anyone else a heretic. Therefore no one is bound by his judgments, and he is to be ignored.

Resp. 2. Indeed, the layman has no authority to render an authoritative judgment with legal effect or binding upon anyone else. However, he is competent to make a cognitive judgment; indeed, he is bound to do so when presented with teaching which contradicts that to which he is already bound, or told that he is excommunicated, or must desist from a particular line of conduct. He must judge the right thing to do, enlightened by faith, prudence and conscience.

Further, there is no reason for him to be ignored; on the contrary, his arguments should be refuted if they are false.

Obj. 3. This theory is very convenient for you. Therefore this theory is wrong.

Resp. 3. This is a worthless objection in itself. As an argument, it does not follow (the hidden minor premise to make it follow would need to be “That which is convenient for you is wrong”, which is obvious nonsense). It is also implicitly blasphemous, in that it suggests that Christ’s Church must function solely on inconvenience; whereas in fact, faith is the foundation of Christ’s Church, and it is very fitting that there be convenient solutions for problems relating to heresy, which is opposed to faith.

Obj. 4. It does not matter how bad the authority is. It is the authority, and you must accept it.

Resp. 4. We agree that the person holding authority can be morally bad. But the question is not about the morality of the person, but whether he is a heretic, and/or whether he teaches that which is heretical.

We should respond to such an objection by saying that it presupposes an entirely voluntaristic and naturalistic notion of authority, and thereby shows itself to be faulty.

Obj. 5. You are saying that papal authority only applies when you agree with the Pope.

Resp. 5. No, I am saying that we are obliged to assent to divine revelation and the teaching of the Church. When someone, even a prelate, attempts to impose propositions upon us which are contrary to what we are already bound to believe, we are obliged to either reject the new teaching in favour of the old, or the old in favour of the new. It is not possible to hold two contradictory propositions at the same time. Further, this is precisely what St Paul tells us to do in Galatians, and the saints and theologians have interpreted him in precisely this way.

Obj. 6. You are a Protestant, because you believe in a “right of scrutiny” over papal teaching.

Resp. 6. See Mgr Guérard des Lauriers’ treatment of this issue below:

‘The Right of Scrutiny’ and the drawing of consequences

Fr (later Bishop) Guérard des Lauriers. Cahiers de Cassicicum, n. 1.

We can now see in what sense it may be affirmed that: “every Catholic exercises a legitimate right of scrutiny over Authority and over the form of its decrees.”

This is true simpliciter, that is, absolutely, a priori and positively, within a human collective that belongs solely to the natural order. Whereas in the human collective that is the “Church,” whose Authority and norms are divinely instituted, the right of scrutiny belongs to subordinates only a posteriori and negatively.

We say a posteriori, because the object of this “right of scrutiny” is neither Authority in itself, nor the very form of its decrees; rather, the object of this right is the consequences of the acts performed by Authority. The “right of scrutiny” formally concerns the consequence. It is a posteriori.

We say negatively, because it does not belong to the faithful to judge positively that such-and-such an act of Authority is truly in conformity with the “marks” of the Church. But it is excluded that anything which truly emanates from Authority – whether in word or in deed – should sustain a contradiction, or practically a contrariety, with the “marks” of the Church. The faithful have the right of scrutiny regarding this exclusion; that is, they have the right to observe that this exclusion is concretely manifested, under the form of antagonisms and tensions, in reality. Thus, the consequences of what truly emanates – whether in word or in deed – from Authority must not entail contradiction or contrariety with the marks of the Church. In this sense, then, the “right of scrutiny” may be exercised; and it can be seen that this must be done only negatively: MUST NOT.

It must further be added that, with this right of scrutiny thus specified, to exercise it is not merely a right – it is a duty; a duty impelled by the instinct of Faith, and expressed in the testimony of Faith.

Fulfilling this duty never entails that the faithful have positively, a priori, a “right of scrutiny” over Authority. For if the opposition which is by right excluded is manifestly and continually present – if, in fact, there is real contradiction and actual contrariety between, on the one hand, the marks of the Church, and, on the other, what emanates from what appears to be Authority – then the faithful must conclude that, in reality, there is no exercise of Authority, or even that Authority no longer exists. The “right of scrutiny” of the faithful thus pertains not to Authority, but to the fact that Authority does not exist.

This right and this duty consist in observing that a given “subject” is no longer metaphysically capable – according to the ontology proper to the divinely instituted order – of exercising Authority, even though he occupies the See of Authority. This subject holds “authority” materialiter, but he is not invested with it formaliter. Therefore, the faithful never have to oppose Authority formaliter. The so-called “duty to disobey” is nothing but a mirage, whose artificiality takes shape only by the elasticity of language.

HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!

As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.

Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.

A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.

You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.

And you can visit The WM Review Shop for our ‘Lovely Mugs’ and more.

(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)

Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!

Subscribe now

Donate

Lovely Mugs

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

Read Next:

• Can heretics excommunicate? Foundational canonical text says they cannot

• ‘Audivimus’, ‘Achatius’ and Causa XXIV: Heretics Excommunicating Catholics

• Church teaching says you can’t be excommunicated by a heretic

• Heretics REALLY can’t excommunicate: More clarifications in light of SSPX excommunications

• Abp. Lefebvre and the ‘heretics can’t excommunicate’ argument

• ‘Something is dying with this new religion’ – newly consecrated Bishop Goldade recognises what fair-weather friends denied

• History repeating itself? A closer look at the Vatican’s SSPX excommunications

Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:

• Twitter (The WM Review)

• The Father Coleridge Reader

• YouTube

• Telegram

12

Cf. Eric Hoyle’s study here:

Eric Hoyle Heresy & Pope Heretic Question

588KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Editor’s Notes

Following on from the extended quote from G.K. Chesterton in my article on suicide, here are the famous English convert’s thoughts on lunatics and lunacy.

These comments pertain to conspiracy theories.

History is full of men conspiring together in order to advance their ends – often at the expense of the common good. Those who dispute this, or think that something can be refuted by calling it a “conspiracy theory” are living in denial.

It is not necessary to prove conclusively the existence of a given conspiracy in order to justify acting as if it is or could be true (i.e., acting by taking certain prudent steps to protect oneself, proportionate to the probability established).1

However, while it is not necessary to have complete documentary evidence of a conspiracy in order to take such steps, it is necessary to have some evidence before accusing others, and for this evidence to be more than intuition, fantasy, paranoia, and coherence with one’s prejudices. The graver and more specific an accusation, and the more publicity which it is to receive, and the more harm which it will cause, the stronger such evidence and reasons must be.

We are all bound by the usual standards of the moral law – such as the Eighth Commandment:

“Thou shalt not bear false witness.”

Similarly, we are all obliged not to harm a person’s reputation without just cause, and to avoid the sins of detraction, calumny and rash judgment. Believing oneself to have special insights into how the world “really” works does not dispense from these obligations.

The relevance of this to Chesterton’s comments will be clear upon reading the latter.

Subscribe now

The Maniac

G.K. Chesterton

Orthodoxy, Chapter II, pp. 23–35. Lane, New York, 1909.
Headings and some line breaks added for ease of reading online.

Insanity, a fact of life

Though moderns deny the existence of sin, I do not think that they have yet denied the existence of a lunatic asylum. We all agree still that there is a collapse of the intellect as unmistakable as a falling house. Men deny hell, but not, as yet, Hanwell [a lunatic asylum in London]. For the purpose of our primary argument the one may very well stand where the other stood. I mean that as all thoughts and theories were once judged by whether they tended to make a man lose his soul, so for our present purpose all modern thoughts and theories may be judged by whether they tend to make a man lose his wits.

It is true that some speak lightly and loosely of insanity as in itself attractive. But a moment’s thought will show that if disease is beautiful, it is generally some one else’s disease. A blind man may be picturesque; but it requires two eyes to see the picture. And similarly even the wildest poetry of insanity can only be enjoyed by the sane. To the insane man his insanity is quite prosaic, because it is quite true. A man who thinks himself a chicken is to himself as ordinary as a chicken. A man who thinks he is a bit of glass is to himself as dull as a bit of glass. It is the homogeneity of his mind which makes him dull, and which makes him mad. It is only because we see the irony of his idea that we think him even amusing; it is only because he does not see the irony of his idea that he is put in Hanwell at all.

In short, oddities only strike ordinary people. Oddities do not strike odd people. This is why ordinary people have a much more exciting time; while odd people are always complaining of the dulness of life. This is also why the new novels die so quickly, and why the old fairy tales endure for ever. The old fairy tale makes the hero a normal human boy; it is his adventures that are startling; they startle him because he is normal. But in the modern psychological novel the hero is abnormal; the centre is not central. Hence the fiercest adventures fail to affect him adequately, and the book is monotonous. You can make a story out of a hero among dragons; but not out of a dragon among dragons. The fairy tale discusses what a sane man will do in a mad world. The sober realistic novel of to-day discusses what an essential lunatic will do in a dull world.

Insanity is more prosaic than thought

Let us begin, then, with the mad-house; from this evil and fantastic inn let us set forth on our intellectual journey. Now, if we are to glance at the philosophy of sanity, the first thing to do in the matter is to blot out one big and common mistake.

There is a notion adrift everywhere that imagination, especially mystical imagination, is dangerous to man’s mental balance. Poets are commonly spoken of as psychologically unreliable; and generally there is a vague association between wreathing laurels in your hair and sticking straws in it. Facts and history utterly contradict this view. Most of the very great poets have been not only sane, but extremely business-like; and if Shakespeare ever really held horses, it was because he was much the safest man to hold them. Imagination does not breed insanity. Exactly what does breed insanity is reason.

Poets do not go mad; but chess-players do. Mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom. I am not, as will be seen, in any sense attacking logic: I only say that this danger does lie in logic, not in imagination. Artistic paternity is as wholesome as physical paternity. Moreover, it is worthy of remark that when a poet really was morbid it was commonly because he had some weak spot of rationality on his brain. Poe, for instance, really was morbid; not because he was poetical, but because he was specially analytical. Even chess was too poetical for him; he disliked chess because it was full of knights and castles, like a poem. He avowedly preferred the black discs of draughts, because they were more like the mere black dots on a diagram. Perhaps the strongest case of all is this: that only one great English poet went mad, Cowper. And he was definitely driven mad by logic, by the ugly and alien logic of predestination.2

Poetry was not the disease, but the medicine; poetry partly kept him in health. He could sometimes forget the red and thirsty hell to which his hideous necessitarianism dragged him among the wide waters and the white flat lilies of the Ouse. He was damned by John Calvin; he was almost saved by John Gilpin.

Everywhere we see that men do not go mad by dreaming. Critics are much madder than poets. Homer is complete and calm enough; it is his critics who tear him into extravagant tatters. Shakespeare is quite himself; it is only some of his critics who have discovered that he was somebody else. And though St. John the Evangelist saw many strange monsters in his vision, he saw no creature so wild as one of his own commentators.

Subscribe now

An excess of ‘reason’

The general fact is simple. Poetry is sane because it floats easily in an infinite sea; reason3 seeks to cross the infinite sea, and so make it finite. The result is mental exhaustion, like the physical exhaustion of Mr. Holbein. To accept everything is an exercise, to understand everything a strain. The poet only desires exaltation and expansion, a world to stretch himself in. The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits.

It is a small matter, but not irrelevant, that this striking mistake is commonly supported by a striking misquotation. We have all heard people cite the celebrated line of Dryden as “Great genius is to madness near allied.” But Dryden did not say that great genius was to madness near allied. Dryden was a great genius himself, and knew better. It would have been hard to find a man more romantic than he, or more sensible. What Dryden said was this, “Great wits are oft to madness near allied”; and that is true. It is the pure promptitude of the intellect that is in peril of a breakdown.

Also people might remember of what sort of man Dryden was talking. He was not talking of any unworldly visionary like Vaughan or George Herbert. He was talking of a cynical man of the world, a sceptic, a diplomatist, a great practical politician. Such men are indeed to madness near allied. Their incessant calculation of their own brains and other people’s brains is a dangerous trade. It is always perilous to the mind to reckon up the mind. A flippant person has asked why we say, “As mad as a hatter.” A more flippant person might answer that a hatter is mad because he has to measure the human head.

And if great reasoners are often maniacal, it is equally true that maniacs are commonly great reasoners. When I was engaged in a controversy with the Clarion on the matter of free will, that able writer Mr. R. B. Suthers4 said that free will was lunacy, because it meant causeless actions, and the actions of a lunatic would be causeless. I do not dwell here upon the disastrous lapse in determinist logic.

Obviously if any actions, even a lunatic’s, can be causeless, determinism is done for. If the chain of causation can be broken for a madman, it can be broken for a man. But my purpose is to point out something more practical. It was natural, perhaps, that a modern Marxian Socialist should not know anything about free will. But it was certainly remarkable that a modern Marxian Socialist should not know anything about lunatics. Mr. Suthers evidently did not know anything about lunatics.

‘Everything is connected, hiding in plain sight’

The last thing that can be said of a lunatic is that his actions are causeless. If any human acts may loosely be called causeless, they are the minor acts of a healthy man; whistling as he walks; slashing the grass with a stick; kicking his heels or rubbing his hands. It is the happy man who does the useless things; the sick man is not strong enough to be idle. It is exactly such careless and causeless actions that the madman could never understand; for the madman (like the determinist) generally sees too much cause in everything.

The madman would read a conspiratorial significance into those empty activities. He would think that the lopping of the grass was an attack on private property. He would think that the kicking of the heels was a signal to an accomplice. If the madman could for an instant become careless, he would become sane. Every one who has had the misfortune to talk with people in the heart or on the edge of mental disorder, knows that their most sinister quality is a horrible clarity of detail; a connecting of one thing with another in a map more elaborate than a maze.

If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment. He is not hampered by a sense of humour or by charity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing certain sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.

The madman’s explanation of a thing is always complete, and often in a purely rational sense satisfactory. Or, to speak more strictly, the insane explanation, if not conclusive, is at least unanswerable; this may be observed specially in the two or three commonest kinds of madness.

If a man says (for instance) that men have a conspiracy against him, you cannot dispute it except by saying that all the men deny that they are conspirators; which is exactly what conspirators would do. His explanation covers the facts as much as yours. Or if a man says that he is the rightful King of England, it is no complete answer to say that the existing authorities call him mad; for if he were King of England that might be the wisest thing for the existing authorities to do. Or if a man says that he is Jesus Christ, it is no answer to tell him that the world denies his divinity; for the world denied Christ’s.

Why the madman is wrong

Nevertheless he is wrong. But if we attempt to trace his error in exact terms, we shall not find it quite so easy as we had supposed.

Perhaps the nearest we can get to expressing it is to say this: that his mind moves in a perfect but narrow circle. A small circle is quite as infinite as a large circle; but, though it is quite as infinite, it is not so large.

In the same way the insane explanation is quite as complete as the sane one, but it is not so large. A bullet is quite as round as the world, but it is not the world. There is such a thing as a narrow universality; there is such a thing as a small and cramped eternity; you may see it in many modern religions. Now, speaking quite externally and empirically, we may say that the strongest and most unmistakable mark of madness is this combination between a logical completeness and a spiritual contraction.

The lunatic’s theory explains a large number of things, but it does not explain them in a large way. I mean that if you or I were dealing with a mind that was growing morbid, we should be chiefly concerned not so much to give it arguments as to give it air, to convince it that there was something cleaner and cooler outside the suffocation of a single argument. Suppose, for instance, it were the first case that I took as typical; suppose it were the case of a man who accused everybody of conspiring against him.

If we could express our deepest feelings of protest and appeal against this obsession, I suppose we should say something like this:

“Oh, I admit that you have your case and have it by heart, and that many things do fit into other things as you say. I admit that your explanation explains a great deal; but what a great deal it leaves out! Are there no other stories in the world except yours; and are all men busy with your business?

“Suppose we grant the details; perhaps when the man in the street did not seem to see you it was only his cunning; perhaps when the policeman asked you your name it was only because he knew it already. But how much happier you would be if you only knew that these people cared nothing about you! How much larger your life would be if your self could become smaller in it; if you could really look at other men with common curiosity and pleasure; if you could see them walking as they are in their sunny selfishness and their virile indifference!

“You would begin to be interested in them, because they were not interested in you. You would break out of this tiny and tawdry theatre in which your own little plot is always being played, and you would find yourself under a freer sky, in a street full of splendid strangers.”

Or suppose it were the second case of madness, that of a man who claims the crown, your impulse would be to answer:

“All right! Perhaps you know that you are the King of England; but why do you care? Make one magnificent effort and you will be a human being and look down on all the kings of the earth.”

Or it might be the third case, of the madman who called himself Christ. If we said what we felt, we should say:

“So you are the Creator and Redeemer of the world: but what a small world it must be! What a little heaven you must inhabit, with angels no bigger than butterflies! How sad it must be to be God; and an inadequate God! Is there really no life fuller and no love more marvellous than yours; and is it really in your small and painful pity that all flesh must put its faith? How much happier you would be, how much more of you there would be, if the hammer of a higher God could smash your small cosmos, scattering the stars like spangles, and leave you in the open, free like other men to look up as well as down!”

Casting out a devil

And it must be remembered that the most purely practical science does take this view of mental evil; it does not seek to argue with it like a heresy but simply to snap it like a spell.

Neither modern science nor ancient religion believes in complete free thought. Theology rebukes certain thoughts by calling them blasphemous. Science rebukes certain thoughts by calling them morbid. For example, some religious societies discouraged men more or less from thinking about sex. The new scientific society definitely discourages men from thinking about death; it is a fact, but it is considered a morbid fact.

And in dealing with those whose morbidity has a touch of mania, modern science cares far less for pure logic than a dancing Dervish. In these cases it is not enough that the unhappy man should desire truth; he must desire health. Nothing can save him but a blind hunger for normality, like that of a beast. A man cannot think himself out of mental evil; for it is actually the organ of thought that has become diseased, ungovernable, and, as it were, independent. He can only be saved by will or faith.

The moment his mere reason moves, it moves in the old circular rut; he will go round and round his logical circle, just as a man in a third-class carriage on the Inner Circle will go round and round the Inner Circle unless he performs the voluntary, vigorous, and mystical act of getting out at Gower Street.

Decision is the whole business here; a door must be shut for ever. Every remedy is a desperate remedy. Every cure is a miraculous cure. Curing a madman is not arguing with a philosopher; it is casting out a devil.

Subscribe now

HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!

As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.

Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.

A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.

You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.

And you can visit The WM Review Shop for our ‘Lovely Mugs’ and more.

(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)

Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!

Subscribe now

Donate

Lovely Mugs

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

Read Next:

Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:

• Twitter (The WM Review)

• The Father Coleridge Reader

• YouTube

• Telegram

(WM Round-Up) – Although it is not always evident here, long-time readers of The WM Review may know that both editors have an interest in the Catholic understanding of psychology, and in mental health.

One of our most popular articles of all time is ‘It’s not a sin to be depressed: What St Philip Neri and St Thomas Aquinas have to say’. In a world in which natural ailments like depression are “supernaturalised” or “spiritualised”, and even presented as moral faults, many readers living with depression found this article refreshing and helpful.

Incidentally, I was interested to note that Bishop Donald Sanborn expressed similar ideas in the June 2026 livestream for Roman Catholic Media:

In a similar vein, LifeSiteNews have just published a lengthy article by myself on the topic of suicide. The article was prompted by the Archdiocese of Chicago’s recent unveiling of a monument to those who have committed suicide.

Here are the Contents of the article, to give an idea of the topics discussed:

CONTENTS

• Introduction – The Archdiocese of Chicago’s Monument

• The traditional teaching of the Church on suicide

  • Voluntary and involuntary suicide

  • Direct and indirect suicide

• What the Church teaches on the morality of suicide

• The reasons the Church gives for judging suicide to be evil

• ‘Suicidal ideation’: Temptations to suicide

• Talking about temptations to suicide

• The eternal fate of suicides

• Can suicides repent – and can we hope or presume that they did?

  • The anecdote of St John Vianney, Curé d’Ars

  • What is mortal sin, and what is perfect contrition?

  • The practical importance of thinking about eternity

• The Church’s traditional practice regarding suicides

• Are suicides incapable of exercising free will?

• Evaluation of the Chicago monument

• Conclusion – G.K. Chesterton on suicide

You can find the article here at LifeSiteNews:

The Church’s teaching on suicide: everything you need to know

Here are some necessary disclaimers, included in the article:

WARNING: The following essay deals with very serious issues. Some readers may be troubled by its content, especially if they have lost loved ones to suicide. Reader discretion is required.

And here are some necessary resources, also taken from the article:

Suicide is preventable.

The CDC has some resources here: https://www.cdc.gov/suicide/resources/index.html

You can also read about warning signs and how to talk to someone in your life who may be at risk.

You can call or text 988 to reach the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline (The Lifeline is toll-free, available 24/7, 365 days a year). You can also chat at Chat at 988lifeline.org

You should also consider reaching out to a traditional Catholic priest in your area.

Subscribe now

HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!

As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.

Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.

A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.

You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.

And you can visit The WM Review Shop for our ‘Lovely Mugs’ and more.

(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)

Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!

Subscribe now

Donate

Lovely Mugs

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

Read Next:

Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:

• Twitter (The WM Review)

• The Father Coleridge Reader

• YouTube

• Telegram

Introduction

This is Chapter III of my latest “book”, ‘Spotless and Unsullied’ – Indefectibility and the Extended Vacancy. This chapter deals with the doctrine of indefectibility itself – before proceeding, in later chapters, to examine other interpretations in light of it.

This chapter covers the following topics:

Chapter III: Indefectibility and an Extended Vacancy

Abductive reasoning
What indefectibility does not prevent: A falling away, and an extended vacancy
The effect of an extended vacancy
An extended vacancy is possible

Spotless and Unsullied is Part III of my response to Fr Thomas Crean OP’s article “A City Set on a Hill Cannot Be Hidden: The Perpetual Visibility of the Catholic Church Under the Pope.” Peter Kwasniewski described Fr Crean’s article as “a definitive rebuttal of sedevacantism, at the level of first principles.”

All the parts may be found here:

• ‘Radically insufficient’ – Reply to Fr Crean on the Church’s visibility

• ‘Zero Marks’ – Why the Conciliar/Synodal Church is not the Catholic Church

• ‘Spotless and Unsullied’ – Indefectibility and the Extended Vacancy

Although Spotless and Unsullied builds on the previous two parts, and the various “ancillary” articles published since I began this response, it can be read independently of them.

How we are publishing Spotless and Unsullied

Although Fr Crean only published a short and popular article against “sedevacantism”, it contained many points that need to be addressed. I am grateful to him for prompting this response, which has ranged over many different topics.

Spotless and Unsullied is not as long as Zero Marks (the previous part), but it is still very long and detailed for a single article – running to nearly 26,000, including notes (which contain a lot of interesting material).

For this reason, I will again be making it available first for WM+ members, and then releasing each of the four chapters separately for all readers over the coming weeks. The previous chapters are available here:

1. What is indefectibility? And what are the ‘Gates of Hell’?

2. Debunking inadequate accounts of the Church’s indefectibility

Substantial work of this length and depth is only possible thanks to those who subscribe to WM+, to whom we are very grateful.

If you would like to read the whole essay immediately, sign up to WM+ plus today:

• ‘Spotless and Unsullied’ – Indefectibility and the Extended Vacancy

Subscribe now

Other resources

I discussed this chapter with Stephen Kokx over at Integrity Magazine.

A video playlist of interviews on these studies with may be found here:

Video Series

This chapter refers to other recent articles which provide further and better particulars of what is discussed. They can be found here:

• How long can the Holy See be vacant? Fr Louis Coache (and context)

• ‘Sedevacantism’ as a ‘pestiferous heresy’? Fr Ripperger’s accusation analysed

• Does a long vacancy interrupt perpetual succession? Fr Raphel Cercia SJ

Readers are also advised to consult the treatment of the topic of indefectibility in the many works of ecclesiology available, as well as Fr Damien Dutertre ICR’s study on the same topic:

• Fr Damien Dutertre ICR: On the Indefectibility of the Church

Subscribe now

Chapter III: Indefectibility and an Extended Vacancy

Abductive reasoning

Both “sedevacantists” and “sedeplenists” like Fr Crean are broadly united in their recognition of the facts of the last sixty years. Where we differ is our understanding of how these facts are to be explained.

The method of reasoning based on an inference to the best explanation is known as abduction.

Abductive reasoning seeks to infer from the evidence the best explanation of various effects. In inferring the best explanation, abductive reasoning favours simplicity, explanatory power, prior probability and normality (i.e., explanations which are the least extraordinary), although none of these criteria can be wholly decisive. In our use of abduction, we must specifically mention coherence with Catholic doctrine as a criterion, as any explanation which contradicts Catholic doctrine must be rejected.

But before considering this line of argument, let us note the following.

“Sedevacantists” hold the vacancy of the Holy See to be certain, and this certainty may be attained in several ways.

For instance, Mgr Guérard des Lauriers’ argument, based on the impossibility of a true Pope promulgating the documents of Vatican II on 8 December 1965, is referred to as his deductive argument. This argument continues to hold for other “impossibilities” that have occurred since then, and because Paul VI’s successors have at least tacitly renewed the “impossibilities” of their predecessors.

Mgr Guérard des Lauriers also proposed another argument, referred to as his inductive argument, which held that, as Paul VI’s acts converged towards the destruction of the Church and its replacement with a false religion, he lacked the habitual intention to procure to “good-end” of the Church, a necessary condition for being the Pope. Again, as Paul VI’s successors have followed his programme, they demonstrate their own lack of this necessary condition.

We could add that the convergence of their actions also demonstrates conclusively that Paul VI and his successors have been heretics and schismatics, and thus neither Catholics nor Popes.

• What Leo XIV’s ‘complete commitment’ to Vatican II REALLY means

Both deductive and inductive arguments for the vacancy arrive at certainty.1 But we may also reach this conclusion through abductive arguments, and even if their logic does not necessarily attain certainty, they can reinforce the conviction arising from other arguments.

Thus, without regard for the certainty already attained, let us consider why an extended vacancy is the best explanation for the last sixty years, in light of the Church’s indefectibility.

What indefectibility does not prevent: a falling away, and an extended vacancy

Indefectibility does not prevent the failure of parts of the Church. As to this point, Berry is explicit:

“Indefectibility has been promised to the Church as a whole, not to its various parts. The Church as it exists in particular places may fail; even the Church of a whole nation may fall away as history abundantly proves. The Apostolic See of Rome is the only particular Church to which the promise of perpetual indefectibility has been made.”2

This passage describes the basis of our explanation of what has happened since Vatican II. “Various parts” of the Church have failed; but the Apostolic See has not failed, because it has been vacant. This vacancy is proved with certainty in the ways mentioned – one of which is the impossibility of its authority being engaged in the confirmation of Vatican II, and the subsequent aberrations of the Conciliar/Synodal Church. Thus, in spite of the chaos, the Church and the Holy See remain spotless and unsullied.

As a posteriori evidence, our situation is precisely what one would expect during such a vacancy. To understand this, let us consider Vatican I’s teaching on the reason Christ instituted the papacy.

In the discussion of the basis of the Church’s indefectibility, we considered the following text from Vatican I, which expresses the raison d’être of the Papacy itself:

“Now this charism of truth and of never-failing faith was conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair in order that they might perform their supreme office for the salvation of all; that by them the whole flock of Christ might be kept away from the poisonous bait of error and be nourished by the food of heavenly doctrine; that, the occasion of schism being removed, the whole Church might be preserved as one and, resting on her foundation, might stand firm against the gates of hell.”3 (Emphasis added)

To this, we may add the following from the same Council:

“The eternal shepherd and guardian of our souls, in order to render permanent the saving work of redemption, determined to build a church in which, as in the house of the living God, all the faithful should be linked by the bond of one faith and charity. […]

“In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation.”4

“[B]y unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith, the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd.5

The Council repeats the same idea throughout Pastor Aeternus. Pope Leo XIII teaches the same truth in terms of causation:

“[St Cyprian] calls [the Roman Church] the principal Church, on account of the primacy conferred on Peter himself and his legitimate successors; and the source of unity, because the Roman Church is the efficient cause of unity in the Christian commonwealth.”6

But an efficient cause produces its effect by acting. The Roman Pontiff is not a “Totem Pope”, who secures the unity of the Church merely by his continued existence on the See of St Peter. A “Totem Pope” cannot at all be described as an “efficient cause”.

• ‘Totem Pope’—Does the mere election of a pope fulfil Christ’s promises?

• ‘Totem Pope’—Should we ignore what goes on in Rome?

On the contrary, this unity is secured by the exercise of his powers of magisterium and jurisdiction; by teaching and governing the Church.

Without this efficient cause, the effect is not produced – at least, not in the same way. The theologian Cardinal J.B. Franzelin explains how the Church’s indefectibility, infallibility and unity function during a vacancy of the Holy See:

“It is most important to consider the very root of the whole life of the Church, by which I mean the indefectibility and infallible custody of the deposit of the faith.

“Certainly there remains in the Church not only indefectibility in believing (called passive infallibility) but also infallibility in proclaiming the truth already revealed and already sufficiently proposed for Catholic belief, even while she is for a time bereaved of her visible head, so that neither the whole body of the Church in its belief, nor the whole Episcopate in its teaching, can depart from the faith handed down and fall into heresy, because this permanence of the Spirit of truth in the Church, the kingdom and spouse and body of Christ, is included in the very promise and institution of the indefectibility of the Church for all days even to the consummation of the world.

“The same is to be said, by the same reasoning, for the unity of communion against a universal schism, as for the truth of the faith against heresy. For the divine law and promise of perpetual succession in the See of Peter, as the root and center of Catholic unity, remains; and to this law and promise correspond, on the part of the Church, not only the right and duty of, but also indefectibility in, legitimately procuring and receiving the succession and in keeping the unity of communion with the Petrine See even when vacant, in view of the successor who is awaited and will indefectibly come […]”7

The full text is here:

• 2 weeks or 60 years: Which fits Franzelin’s account of sede vacante?

However, while this unity remains, a vacancy necessarily suspends the active exercise of the papal jurisdiction and magisterium, which are the means by which the Church is held together as one in faith and in charity. As Romano Amerio wrote in 1985:

“The external fact is the disunity of the Church, visible in the disunity of the bishops among themselves, and with the Pope. The internal fact producing [this disunity] is the renunciation, that is, the non-functioning, of papal authority itself, from which the renunciation of all other authority derives.”8

(Amerio did not embrace the conclusion of an extended vacancy, but we have discussed why his ideas on this and other matters point to this conclusion, rather than to sixty years of habitual inaction by legitimate popes, in Chapter IV of Zero Marks.)

The “non-functioning” of powers that exist to secure unity predictably results not only in doctrinal confusion, but also in many falling out of communion with the Church – even while the Church as a whole cannot lose this unity of faith and communion.

Further, this falling away can only exacerbate the doctrinal confusion if, due to the vacancy and non-functioning of papal authority, those who fall away are not authoritatively declared as non-Catholics, and if errors are not corrected (or are even proposed by usurpers).

Franzelin’s explanation of the state of the Church during a vacancy is offers further light on this:

“When the Pope dies, says Cano [a leading theologian of the 16th century], the Church, without doubt, remains one, and the Spirit of truth remains in her; but she is left crippled [manca] and diminished without the Vicar of Christ and the one pastor of the Catholic Church.

“Therefore, although truth even then is in the Church; but if controversies over the faith and religion should arise, the judgments of the Church which is without a head on earth will not be as certain.”9

The Church is currently “crippled” in the sense that “controversies” and pressing questions cannot be resolved. These controversies include matters of doctrine, as well as personnel (viz., who is and is not a member or officer in the Church). In fact, controversies over personnel are the defining note of our time, in that more men seem to have fallen away from the whole than those who have remained – and yet both classes are considered to make up the Church. But there is nothing to exclude this possibility, as we discussed in Zero Marks (Chapter II).

The rampant spread of error – and indeed of a false religion, presented as the Catholic religion – is on the outer extreme of what is meant by the Church’s “judgments” being “less certain”. But in spite of the duration and extent of the crisis, our current situation differs by degree from a short interregnum, and not in kind.

The duration and extent of the “crippling” and “uncertainty” produce a grave obscuration of the Church’s visibility, and not a defection. But as I demonstrated in Radically Insufficient, this visibility admits of degrees, and may be gravely obscured without being lost.

To demonstrate this, let us now consider (a) the possibility of an extended vacancy, and (b) the response to the objection that an extended vacancy in our time, as the explanation for our crisis, would constitute a defection, due to the consequences alleged to flow from it.

An extended vacancy is possible

Cardinal Franzelin writes:

“The seat, that is the perpetual right of the primacy, never ceases, on the part of God in His unchangeable law and supernatural providence, and on the part of the Church in her right and duty of forever keeping as a deposit the power divinely instituted on behalf of the individual successors of Peter, and of securing their succession by a fixed law; but the individual heirs or those sitting [sedentes] in the Apostolic seat are mortal men; and therefore the seat can never fail, but it can be vacant and often is vacant.”10

The traditionalist pioneer Fr Louis Coache explains why this is the case:

“The Holy See – or Apostolic See – is a moral person of divine law (Can. 100). It is therefore an institution willed in itself by Our Lord. […]

“Thus the Holy See is a (moral) person of divine institution: autonomous, independent, permanent, and infallible. It is the permanence of the authority of the Roman Church – sovereign authority over the universal Church.”11 (All bold text from Fr Coache is from the original)

The full text is here:

• How long can the Holy See be vacant? Fr Louis Coache (and context)

The conclusion which he draws from this is based on the distinction between moral persons of ecclesiastical law and of divine law:

“A moral person of ecclesiastical law is perpetual by nature (can. 102), meaning that it cannot disappear except by the explicit and legitimate will of the competent authority; it even possesses a survival of one hundred years if it ceases de facto to be in exercise.”

“A moral person of divine law cannot die; the Church can therefore remain for a very long time without a Pope – the Holy See is always alive with the permanence of papal authority.”

By contrast, he adds that when the Pope himself does die – whether literally or “morally” – “[t]he authority of the Holy See does not die.”12

He specifies various ways in which, during a vacancy, “the authority of Peter endures in all that authentically expresses it.” In addition to the machinery of the Apostolic See itself, he points to “the Documents of Holy Church” and “her tradition.” A similar account is given by Cardinal Billot,13 Fr René Goupil,14 Fr Domenico Palmieri SJ,15 and the BAC commentary on the 1917 Code of Canon Law.16

Cardinal Franzelin expresses the consequence when he explains how the “the unity of communion” is maintained during a vacancy, through “the right and duty of […] keeping the unity of communion with the Petrine See even when vacant, in view of the successor who is awaited and will indefectibly come.”17 As Fr Coache put it:

“One can therefore be separated from the physical person without being separated from the moral person (on 9 October 1958, we were separated from the person of Pope Pius XII, but we remained united to the Holy See). Let us understand well: “separated from the physical person” because that person fails, or disappears physically or canonically.”18

Nonetheless, such a vacancy is not without consequences. In his work on the Apocalypse, Fr Berry stated the following:

“It is a matter of history that the most disastrous periods for the Church were times when the Papal throne was vacant, or when anti-popes contended with the legitimate head of the Church. Thus also shall it be in those evil days to come.”19

Fr Herman Bernard Kramer, in his work on the same subject, also stated that

“[A]n extended interregnum in the papacy is always disastrous and more so in a time of universal persecution. If Satan would contrive to hinder a papal election, the Church would suffer great travail.”20

The effects of an extended vacancy can indeed be described as “terrible and distressing.” However, the nineteenth century theologian Fr Edmund O’Reilly SJ, Professor of Theology and described as “one of the first theologians of the day” and a “great authority” by John Henry Cardinal Newman,21 wrote the following:

“[C]ontingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.”22

If an extended vacancy was “excluded by the Divine promises”, then (a) no extended vacancy, even if shorter in duration than that which we posit, could have taken place in history – and yet they have; and (b) theologians would not discuss the possibility of such a vacancy in the way that they do.

In fact, it is beyond question that such an extended vacancy is possible – even though many pundits do question it today. Aside from the testimony of history,23 it has been expressly recognised by theologians such as:

• Cardinal Louis Billot24

• Fr E. Sylvester Berry (who, in his de Ecclesia, stated that the See could “be vacant for many years”)25

• Fr Domenico Palmieri SJ26

• Fr Raphael Cercia SJ27

• Fr Anton Straub SJ28

• Dom Prosper Guéranger OSB29

• Fr Edmund O’Reilly SJ30

Their statements may be found here:

• ‘Sedevacantism’ as a ‘pestiferous heresy’? Fr Ripperger’s accusation analysed

Other theologians have recognised that the Church’s indefectibility is not jeopardised by the Holy See being occupied materialiter by illegitimate claimants.31 Some of the authorities cited in Radically Insufficient also recognised the havoc which would be caused by an extended vacancy of the Holy See, or of a situation in which a given papal claimant is of doubtful legitimacy.

But while an extended vacancy (and the turmoil which attends on it) is possible for the indefectible Church, it is not possible for the Church to defect; neither during a vacancy, nor under a true Pope. The manifest defection of the Conciliar/Synodal Church demonstrates that its recent papal claimants have not been true Popes – and that the body constituted by at least nominal communion with them is not the Catholic Church.

Conclusion: The five criteria of abductive reasoning considered

To summarise, an extended vacancy is indeed the best possible explanation for the facts:

• It is simple: not in that it is simplistic, but in that it posits a single cause to describe all the events and problems of the last sixty years (e.g., how Vatican II could teach condemned errors, other authoritative documents enshrining error, the habitual teaching of error, evil laws, impossible canonisations, doubtful sacraments, the absence of the four marks in the body, the dissolution of authority into both tyranny and anarchy, and the mass apostasy of so many from the Church – in which many former Catholics continue to be treated as Catholics), rather than each event and problem requiring a separate cause (as is necessary in the alternative explanations)

• Related to its simplicity, this explanation has the strongest explanatory power: the vacancy explains the multiplicity of problems arising since Vatican II, mentioned above.

• The crisis itself, however it is to be explained, is utterly improbable; but given that it is here, an extended vacancy has a greater degree of prior probability. There have been comparable (if less grave) scenarios in the past, and Catholic theologians have recognised the possibility of an extended vacancy and the harm that it would cause. By contrast, the idea that the Church could suffer sixty years of Popes carrying out or even tolerating the phenomena just described, with Catholics needing to “recognise” their legitimacy whilst “resisting” their acts, has no prior probability at all. This system was directly rejected by Popes32 and theologians33, and the authorities cited in its favour are generally misunderstood by its apologists (e.g., St Robert Bellarmine’s “resistance” comments).34

• It has normality, in the specific sense that the principles behind the explanation have been acknowledged by Catholic authorities in the past; whereas principles of the “recognise and resist” or “contrive a reconciliation between contradictions” explanations have not. Further, the theology upon which the extended vacancy is based is classical, as has been demonstrated throughout; whereas advocates of the latter two explanations both (a) recognise the need to “rethink” this classical theology, and even (b) sometimes rely on misunderstandings or distortions of what these authorities have written (as mentioned in the previous point).

• It coheres with Catholic doctrine, without doing violence to the doctrines discussed, as I have explained in these responses. Every difficulty can be answered with reference to the magisterium and theological authorities, with all points of doctrine respected. On the other hand, the alternative requires the “rethinking” mentioned, and the overlooking of the crucial aspects of the Church’s indefectibilty and other points of doctrine.

In this essay, focused particularly on indefectibility, the final point is the most important.

Our account and explanation is compatible with indefectibility; Fr Crean’s, unfortunately, is not.

To read the final chapter NOW, sign up to WM+ plus TODAY:

• ‘Spotless and Unsullied’ – Indefectibility and the Extended Vacancy

Subscribe now

HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!

As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.

Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.

A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.

You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.

And you can visit The WM Review Shop for our ‘Lovely Mugs’ and more.

(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)

Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!

Subscribe now

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

Read Next:

Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:

• Twitter (The WM Review)

• The Father Coleridge Reader

• YouTube

• Telegram

The Passion and the Eclipse

By Peregrinus

The Testimony of Holy Scripture

Erat autem fere hora sexta, et tenebræ factæ sunt in universam terram usque ad horam nonam. Et obscuratus est sol, et velum templi scissum est medium.

And it was almost the sixth hour; and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst. (Luke 23:44,45)

The Latin verses are from the Vulgate Bible, St. Jerome’s faithful translation from Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. For centuries, the Vulgate was the only version of Scripture used in the Western Church, and it was the basis for vernacular translations until the mid-twentieth century. The Douay-Rheims Bible was translated directly from the Vulgate.

The verses describe what happened as Our Lord Jesus Christ commended His spirit into the hands of His Eternal Father. Let us focus on the beginning of the second verse, describing the sun, and the word “darkened.”

St. Luke is the only Evangelist to mention the sun. In the Vulgate the word given is obscuratus, which can mean darkened, concealed, or hidden. However, in astronomy, one of the ways of saying “the sun was eclipsed” is exactly obscuratus est sol, a phrase popular in authors from the Middle Ages because of the influence of that form in the Vulgate.

In the Greek texts, the phrase is (toû hēlíou) eklipóntos, which comes from the verb ekleípō, with various meanings (e.g. to faint, to fail, or to depart). When used in astronomy it means to be eclipsed, and it is the origin of the word ékleipsis - eclipse. This is why the modern NAB translation, which is translated from the Greek rather than from the Vulgate, translates this part as (darkness came...) because of an eclipse of the sun.

Further Testimony

Is there, then, any other mention of a total solar eclipse occurring during the Crucifixion?

Indeed there is, in the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus. This “Gospel” was not included in the Bible, because it was not certain that it was divinely inspired – but it was very popular during the Middle Ages, and the Catholic Encyclopedia says that it is “of orthodox composition and free from Gnostic taint”.1 It is precisely from this text that we learned the names of St. Longinus (the Roman centurion who pierced the side of Jesus) and of St. Dismas (the Good Thief).

The Gospel of Nicodemus has Pilate asking the Jews if they saw the darkness, and they answer: “There has been an eclipse of the sun in the usual way”2, which means precisely that it was not in the usual way – solar eclipses last only about 7.5 minutes, not 3 hours – because they did not want to admit to him that something extraordinary happened.

In her visions, Anne Catherine Emmerich also describes the unnatural eclipse, and the great anxiety it caused among both men and beasts, with the Pharisees insisting to Pilate that it was a completely natural event.3

A Mystical Allegory

Why is all this important, and how is it connected to the Passion of the Church?

Since the Mystical Passion of the Church parallels the Passion of Christ, I do not think we could find a parallel that describes the state of the Church today as precisely as that phenomenon of an extended total solar eclipse – which we have good cause to believe was present at the Crucifixion.

Let us imagine a man who did not know what a total solar eclipse is, experiencing one for the first time. When he went out of the house and saw it in the sky, he would think that he was looking at one body, the Sun, which had for some reason gone dark, and only an outer ring could be seen. The Earth would be covered in darkness.

If, for the sake of our consideration, such an eclipse continued for years, he would simply think that that is how the Sun had come to look. His children, born after the eclipse started, would not even know that a different Sun existed.

Well, the Catholic Church is, fittingly, the Sun, since she illuminates the world with sanctity of life and heavenly doctrine. The dark Moon obscuring the Sun is the Modernist sect (those who publicly confess the Modernist heresies, and especially the intruders who occupy the churches and usurp the positions of authority), which has placed itself in the position of the Sun4, obscuring it (“Et obscuratus est sol”) so that the observer can see but a tiny fragment of its rays (the true doctrine and Mass now found in few places). The Earth covered in darkness represents the world which lost its moral compass and sank into the worst sins and faithlessness, now that the Church is occupied by Modernists, and her visibility and guiding light is diminished.

Just as the observer thinks that what he is seeing is the Sun having gone dark, people think that they are seeing the Catholic Church changing her doctrine and rites, and ceasing to shine with the holiness and purity that they (even non-Catholics) had previously observed in her. Those born after the change do not even know of a different church than that dark entity with a shiny edge they grew up seeing.

But to a few, it is given to see that the Church is not that entity; that what they see is just an appearance. It is in fact two bodies that they see: one, bright, which is the Church, the body being eclipsed; the other, dark, the Modernist sect, the body eclipsing the former.

The unnaturally long duration of the eclipse at the Crucifixion is another parallel, since it was over 24 times longer than the longest natural eclipse; the current vacancy of the Apostolic See, depending on which year is taken as the start, has been from 22 to over 24 times longer than the longest “normal” vacancy (2.76 years, in the late 13th century).

Subscribe now

Further Explanation

To the common observer, the appearance is that of one body, composed of…

(a) Catholics, deceived into thinking that the Conciliar Church represents the Catholic Church (which is not surprising, because materially it seems to be the same body with the same name and succession of pastors), and also

(b) all kinds of Modernist heretics,

… with each category confessing a multitude of opposing doctrines.

This mirage of one body is the Conciliar Church – those who recognise the Conciliar pretenders as popes and submit to them. It is no wonder, then, that the Conciliar Church is not united in faith, since it is not in fact one body.

On the other hand, Traditional Catholics are that shining remnant of the Sun visible at the edge, marginalised and small, but still showing the beauty and holiness of the True Church in her rites and her doctrine, so that even so obscured, she is always attracting new converts. One of the distinguishing features of Traditional Catholics is precisely this refusal to submit to the darkness of the Modernists, and even though some verbally recognise the usurpers, none truly submit to them. The eyes of Traditional Catholics are not veiled by that darkness and by ignorance of the Faith (unlike those who are still Catholic but trapped in the N.O.), they are not mixed up in the chaos of the Conciliar Babylon (“Go out from her, my people...”5). They are the ones who obey what God commands through His Apostle:

Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God; as God saith:

I will dwell in them, and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore, Go out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing: And I will receive you; and I will be a Father to you; and you shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Cor. 6:14-18)

Reflection

This Crisis has lasted a long time. The sea is relentless, the little ship is now filled with water, and the storm is raging all around us. We can do nothing to stop it; we are powerless. Our Lord seems asleep.

Let us pray that He may soon rebuke the wind and calm the waves, but let us not be of little faith: He is in control. All will marvel when He miraculously intervenes to end these times of darkness, just as they marveled at the See of Galilee.6 To quote Mr. , “this crisis is a crisis of faith”; as such, a renewal of faith is the answer.

Note

The analogy of the eclipse was adopted because it seems to be the best phenomenon to describe the state of the Church, and because it seems to show another parallel between the Passion of Christ and the Passion of His Mystical Body.

Not counting the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich (which are neither approved nor condemned by the Church), this article is not intended to promote any supernatural messages or books containing such, and especially not those condemned by the Church.

We know that there is a multiplication of various false messages in modern times. If such are found to mention the same phenomenon, that does not mean that the analogy presented in this article is false (or that those messages are true), because even in false supernatural messages there are often elements of truth to make them more believable.

Subscribe now

HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!

As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.

Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.

A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.

You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.

And you can visit The WM Review Shop for our ‘Lovely Mugs’ and more.

(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)

Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!

Subscribe now

Donate

Lovely Mugs

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

Read Next:

Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:

• Twitter (The WM Review)

• The Father Coleridge Reader

• YouTube

• Telegram

(WM Round-Up) – On Wednesday 15 July 2026, I appeared on Integrity Magazine’s podcast with to continue our new series about the indefectibility of the Church, and my long article ‘Spotless and Unsullied’ – Indefectibility and the Extended Vacancy.

The conversation focused on Chapter III: Indefectibility and an Extended Vacancy.

Spotless and Unsullied is the third part of my response to Fr Thomas Crean OP’s article The Perpetual Visibility of the Catholic Church Under the Pope.

Much of what Fr Crean writes about indefectibility in this article is correct; however, it overlooks or obscures extra elements of this attribute of the Church, and this allows him to use it in an argument against “sedevacantism.”

Topics in this interview included:

• Abductive reasoning as a means of reaching an explanation

• The criteria of abductive reasoning

• The ‘epistemology of the crisis’, and docility to one’s teachers

• What indefectibility does not prevent: A falling away, and an extended vacancy

• The effect of an extended vacancy.

We did not get to the topic of the possibility of an extended vacancy, which we will pick up in the next interview.

Clarification: I misspoke, stating that did not read The WM Review, and that this encouragingly showed that his recent video on the same subject was the fruit of his own independent work and research. In fact, I meant that he had not read Spotless and Unsullied, and he was kind enough to say in the comments on YouTube:

Thank you for the shoutout, gentlemen!

To clarify, I am familiar with Sean’s work and I greatly admire it. He’s one of the few people I subscribe to on Substack. So, I have certainly read the WM Review— just not this particular piece yet!

God bless you both. Great show.

We will be releasing Chapter III of Spotless and Unsullied for all readers next week. But you can read it NOW in the book-length article discussed here:

Spotless and Unsullied – Indefectibility and the Extended Vacancy

(NB: It is not necessary to have read Radically Insufficient or Zero Marks before reading Spotless and Unsullied.)

Subscribe now

Other parts in the Zero Marks series:

• ‘Radically insufficient’ – Reply to Fr Crean on the Church’s visibility, Part I

• ‘Zero Marks’ – Why the Conciliar/Synodal Church is not the Catholic Church (Reply to Fr Thomas Crean) (All chapters and conclusion)

  • Introduction, and Chapter I: Unity

  • Chapter II: Holiness

  • Chapter III: Catholicity

  • Chapter IV: Apostolicity as a Mark

  • Chapter V: Apostolicity as a Property

  • Conclusion: ‘Hovel in the Valley’

• Spotless and Unsullied – Indefectibility and the Extended Vacancy (Part III)

  • Chapter I: What is indefectibility, and what are the ‘Gates of Hell’?

  • Chapter II: Fr Crean’s account of indefectibility

See also:

• Fr Damien Dutertre ICR – ‘On the Indefectibility of the Church’

The previous interviews

This interview was a follow up to our previous conversations of the other parts of my response to Fr Crean.

Here is the first interview, on the visibility of the Church (Part I):

Here is the second, on the property of unity (Part II, Ch. 1):

Here is the third, on the property of holiness (Part II, Ch. II):

Here is the fourth, on the property of catholicity (Part II, Ch. III):

Here is the fifth, on the note of apostolicity (Part II, Ch. IV):

Here is the sixth, on the property of apostolicity (Part II, Ch. V):

Here is the seventh, on the conclusion to Zero Marks:

Here is the eighth, on the first chapter of Spotless and Unsullied:

Here is the ninth, on the second chapter of Spotless and Unsullied:

Thank you to Stephen for having me on again. I hope readers of The WM Review enjoy it – and give a follow too.

HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!

As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.

Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.

A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.

You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.

And you can visit The WM Review Shop for our ‘Lovely Mugs’ and more.

(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)

Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!

Subscribe now

Donate

Lovely Mugs

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:

• Twitter (The WM Review)

• The Father Coleridge Reader

• YouTube

• Telegram