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

There are many misunderstandings about St Robert Bellarmine's 'fifth opinion.' Arnaldo da Silveira cuts through to Bellarmine's certain teaching about a 'heretic pope' and 'ipso facto' loss of office.

Image by Fr Lawrence Lew OP. As Amazon Associates, we earn from qualifying purchases through our Amazon links. Click here for The WM Review Reading List.

Editors’ Notes

In light of the recent flurry of action with regards to Francis’ claim to the papacy it seemed timely to make available Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira’s respectful engagement with Fr Gleize SSPX on the matter of what St Robert Bellarmine really taught about a “heretical pope.”

Da Silveira was a renowned and respected writer. He died in 2018, making this essay his last significant theological intervention.

This essay cuts through many such misunderstandings of the “Pope Heretic” question, and gets right to the heart of the matter.

Many people claim to accept St Robert Bellarmine's “Fifth Opinion,” whilst being unable to accept that “ipso facto loss of office” means precisely what it says. As a result, they overcomplicate it, explain it away, or write it off as a mere opinion – ignoring the note that Bellarmine himself gives it.

Others try to collapse it into the fourth position, or claim that he taught the same as Suarez, and thus end up with a Frankenstein hybrid of the fourth and fifth (which we have sometimes called “the sixth” position).

Some, on the basis of these misunderstandings, even accept the “fourth position” outright, taking Cajetan as their authority (although Cajetan later seems to have rejected it) and claiming to be holding “the Dominican position.”

Some theologians, even significant ones, have framed the “Heretic Pope Question” such that there appear to be two options, both problematic: either the Church must judge the pope, which is impossible; or that Christ ipso facto deposes the “heretic pope” when his heresy becomes manifest.

In fact, as da Silveira convincingly shows, both these alternatives are wrong.

Once shorn of the misunderstandings and overcomplications, Bellarmine’s answer is simpler, more coherent and more certain than these options and of any other alternative explanations.

What is this true answer that he gives? You will have to read the essay to find out.

This is a really important essay – and regardless on anyone’s thoughts on St Robert Bellarmine’s “Fifth Opinion” and of Francis, everyone is urged to read it.

Da Silveira’s witness is all the more important here, given that he himself is not a sedevacantist.

The essay was translated by John S. Daly, who has kindly given us permission to publish it here. We have added some paragraph breaks for easy of reading online. A biographical note and a list of his works follow the article.

Why was St Robert Bellarmine declared a Doctor of the Church?

Papal elections without the cardinals? – St Robert Bellarmine

---

FR. GLEIZE AND THE QUESTION OF THE HERETICAL POPE

By Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira

Contents:

• Introduction – 1-2

• Has the Magisterium ever Spoken on the Subject of the Heretical Pope? – 3-6

• Fr. Gleize and Theology as a Science – 7

• The Strange Theses of Fr. Gleize – 8

• The Difficulty of Identifying Heresy – 9

• Is Jurisdiction Compatible with Heresy? – 10

• The Conditional Opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine and Others – 11-13

• The Heresy has Permeated the Greater Part of the Faithful and of the Hierarchy – 14

• Can the Pope’s Inward Adherence to Heresy be Proved? 1– 5-16

• Does the Heretical Pope Lose his Office? – 17

• The Confusion Rampant Among Traditionalists – 18

• Fr. Gleize and Cajetan – 19-20

• The Real Position of St. Robert Bellarmine – 21-25

• The Positions of St. Robert Bellarmine and of Suarez – 26-28

• Three Theologically Certain Propositions – 29-31

• Back to the Issue of Certainty – 32

• Fr. Gleize Criticizes My Study on the Heretical Pope – 33-36

---

Introduction

1. Over the years, I have followed with interest the writings of Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize SSPX, setting forth and analysing the doctrine of the Church, while removing deviant interpretations. For instance Fr. Gleize maintains that the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (to use the expression of Vatican I) is infallible only when it teaches the same truth not only throughout the world, but also for a long time. So too, with discernment and originality, he sets out the limits of infallibility in the canonization of Saints. He also addresses a myriad of other points of traditional theology which are both delicate and highly topical.

2. For these and other good services that Fr. Gleize has rendered to the Holy Church, I express my respect for his work, and stress that these remarks are only intended by way of collaboration in the search for a common theological path for faithful Catholics to tread in safety in the current crisis. Now last January, Fr. Gleize published six articles on the question of the heretic Pope,¹ which I shall be commenting on in a constructive, not a polemical, spirit.

Has the Magisterium ever Spoken on the Subject of the Heretical Pope?

3. Fr. Gleize studies the various positions of ancient and recent theologians on the subject of the heretical Pope,² giving special emphasis to that of Cajetan, generally adopted by the Dominicans. He sets forth the opinions of St. Robert Bellarmine, Suarez, Bouix, Billot and others. In evaluating these positions, he says:

“... with regard to the purely speculative opinions of the ancient theologians, they remain debatable, within the domain of speculation.”³

Distinguishing the speculative question from the prudential one, he writes that when considering the matter

“... as a purely speculative problem, abstracting from all circumstances, one is limited to purely theological reasons, which are considered to apply to every case, but which are only probable and remain insufficient to provide speculative certainty,⁴ because only an argument of magisterial authority, which still does not exist, could give an apodictic answer.”⁵

4. But is it really true that the Magisterium has never spoken about the speculative question of the heretical Pope? The teaching Church, which constitutes the Magisterium strictly so-called, composed exclusively of the Pope and bishops, teaches and speaks not only directly, but also indirectly, for example, by approving, at least tacitly, what is taught by theologians, parish priests and catechists. The issue of the heretical Pope has been of interest to Catholic thinkers for almost two millennia. In the Introduction to his work book Ipotesi Teologica di un Papa Eretico,⁶ Professor Roberto de Mattei shows how in the Middle Ages the question was widely studied. It was further analysed in the Silver Age of Scholasticism; in the following centuries it was studied by saints and doctors such as St. Alphonsus Liguori, Ballerini and Bouix. And in the 150 years of neo-scholasticism, most manuals of Dogmatic and Moral theology and Canon Law make at least a passing reference to the basic theses on the subject. Does all this not bear witness to indirect but real manifestations of the Magisterium?

5. In addition, the numerous statements of Popes and Councils, over the centuries, on the question of the heretic Pope, seem to me to be likewise teachings of the Magisterium. I refer, among others, to the condemnations of Pope Honorius by the VIth and VIIIth Ecumenical Councils, and by Pope St. Leo II; to the famous pronouncement of Innocent III on the hypothesis of his own defection from the Faith; to the Bull of Paul IV Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, which, even taken as a merely disciplinary document, appears to be based on the principle that the Pope may defect from the Faith.

6. In any case, I do not think that we could only have certainties on the subject of the heretical Pope if and when there were definitions of the extraordinary Magisterium about it. This involves the notion of theology as a science, which I outline below.

Fr. Gleize and Theology as a Science

7. Theology, writes St. Thomas, is a science⁷ which has as its object the principles revealed by God, and which

“... surpasses all others, both speculative and practical. Of the speculative sciences, one is more worthy than another, both because of the certainty and the dignity of its matter. And in these two respects, theological science surpasses the other speculative sciences.

“It does so in terms of certainty, because the other sciences have their certainty from the natural light of human reason, which can err; while the certainty of theology comes from the light of divine science, which cannot be deceived.

“According to the dignity of matter, this science deals principally with that which by its elevation transcends reason, whereas the other sciences consider only what submits itself to reason.”⁸

Hence I cannot accept in principle that we can only be certain on the subject of the heretical Pope if and when there exists “an argument of magisterial authority”.⁹

The Strange Theses of Fr. Gleize

8. As we shall see later, Fr. Gleize holds that it should not be said that the Pope can fall into heresy. He holds that if he falls, the formal character of the papal heresy will remain impossible to prove. He holds that, even if this formal character were proved, the Pope would not lose his office. And he holds that any act aimed at the removal of the heretic Pontiff from his see would be founded not on dogmatic principles, but on the virtue of prudence.

The Difficulty of Identifying Heresy

9. Studying the dubia that Cardinals Brandmüller, Burke, Caffarra and Meisner sent to the Pope on Amoris Laetitia, Fr. Gleize says that it is necessary to clarify: (i) whether the five truths enumerated by the dubia of the four cardinals are in fact dogmas; and, (ii) whether Amoris Laetitia in fact denies these dogmas or calls them explicitly enough into doubt. Diverging from recent studies, which underpin the widespread conviction held on this question by faithful Catholics, Fr. Gleize is emphatic: “

The answer to these two questions is far from being clear and certain.”¹⁰

Like some twentieth-century authors, Fr. Gleize strongly emphasizes the technical difficulty of detecting heresy,¹¹ but goes no further. He presents no solution to this difficulty. By contrast I maintain that the sensus fidei and theology can indeed distinguish orthodoxy from heresy and are well able to differentiate a faithful Catholic from a heretic who claims to be one but it not.

Is Jurisdiction Compatible with Heresy?

10. As one of the justifications for his thesis that the Pope, even if he is a heretic, would not lose his position, Fr. Gleize writes:

“Prudence led the founder of the St. Pius X Fraternity to consider, at least in practice and provisionally, that the modernist heresy remains compatible with the possession of the supreme pontificate.”¹²

Now at that time the question of the heretical pope was only beginning to be analyzed in the terms in which it now exists. For this reason, Archbishop Lefebvre expressed a “practical and provisional” opinion, which Fr. Gleize today seems to regard as definitive. The theory of the radical loss of the papacy is defended by the present writer,¹³ is based on the deep incompatibility between heresy and jurisdiction. If both can coexist in the same person, it is because of the visible character of the Church, whose authorities must be constituted and deconstituted by external and public acts. Thus, such coexistence occurs in a state of violence and precariously, in anomalous situations to be corrected as soon as possible. In maintaining that the heretical Pope does not lose his position, is Fr. Gleize not turning a provisional position of Archbishop Lefebvre into a definitive and absolute one while simultaneously carrying it to an extreme degree?

The Conditional [alternative-successive] Opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine and Others

11. Fr. Gleize writes: “The true thesis [for St. Robert Bellarmine] is that the Pope will never fall into heresy;” which makes Bellarmine hold the first opinion instead of the fifth. Hence Fr. Gleize says that for the same Jesuit St. and Doctor of the Church, the opposite is only admissible in a “purely theoretical” way, “per impossibile”.¹⁴

12. However, St. Robert Bellarmine does not close the matter with the First Opinion. He considers this Opinion “probable”, and, perhaps foreseeing future doubts, tautologically reinforces his statement, saying that “it is not certain.”¹⁵ Thus, he defends the fifth Opinion as a conditional (alternative-successive), i.e. he considers the first Opinion to be probable, but assuming it to be possible for the Pope to fall into heresy, he declares that between the Second, Fourth and Fifth opinions, the last is “true”.¹⁶ Hence in calm objectivity it can and should be said that that the Fifth Opinion is that adopted by St. Robert Bellarmine, from a conditional point of view.

13. This conditional, alternative-successive opinion may be expressed as follows: of all the Opinions St. Robert Bellarmine preferentially held the first as probable; but, as it might prove to be erroneous, of the others he held the Fifth. Somewhat analogous to this is the position of other authors who hold the First Opinion as merely probable, among whom are Suarez, Bouix, Bishop Zinelli at Vatican I and Salaverri.¹⁷

The Heresy has Permeated the Greater Part of the Faithful and of the Hierarchy

14. Fr. Gleize maintains that no classical author predicted that the Pope’s heresy might spread through a large part, or even the greater part of the body of the faithful and the Hierarchy.¹⁸

Is this observation relevant? Ballerini, for example, admits that a simple lay Catholic may warn the Pope, as St. Paul commands,¹⁹ which surely implies that Cardinals and other ecclesiastics might not be willing to do so.

Moreover, all the alternatives examined by Fr. Gleize require the intervention of some official organ against the Pope, but such intervention may clearly become unrealisable if the greater part of the Hierarchy adheres to the heresy.

Now, the fifth authentic Opinion, the “true” one, supposes no such intervention on the part of the Church, and therefore avoids this difficulty.

For Fr. Gleize, who mis-states the Fifth Opinion, the sheer extent to which today’s heresy has spread shifts the question from the speculative to the prudential field, making the studies of the past, all of them speculative, irrelevant. This is one reason why his six articles lead to no conclusion, not even a theoretical one, about how a heretical pontiff would lose his office, or even whether he would lose it.

Can the Pope’s Inward Adherence to Heresy Be Proved?

15. According to Fr. Gleize, it is an inadmissible hypothesis that the Pope could fall into heresy both formal and notorious.²⁰ And this is what appears to suggest his treatment of the difficulty of identifying a text as heretical.²¹ Yet the blunt statement that the Pope cannot fall into formal and notorious heresy contradicts almost all the received theologians, for they see nothing in Sacred Scripture and Tradition that clearly indicates the impossibility of such a defection, as Fr. Gleize himself recognizes:

“The provisions provided by positive ecclesiastical law cannot apply to the Pope. Only divine law can establish laws in this matter. Now the sources of Revelation contain no sufficiently explicit teaching on this question.”²²

16. Is it true that, even if the Pope were to fall into formal heresy, his internal adherence to this deviation in the Faith would remain impossible to demonstrate? This is what Fr. Gleize seems to be alleging: “... the passage from material heresy to formal heresy belongs as such to the internal forum and remains unverifiable.”²³ If this were so, it would be impossible to establish the Pope’s formal heresy, i.e. his pertinacity, and the same would also apply to any other heretic, which runs counter to Scripture, Tradition and plain common sense. The truth is that, although the visible Church cannot penetrate men’s minds and hearts, it is undeniable that words and deeds express what is taking place in the soul. Once the suspect has been twice warned, as St. Paul specifies in Titus 3, 10-11, and has proved obstinate, his formal heresy will be externally proved.

Does the Heretical Pope Lose his Office?

17. Fr. Gleize says:

“The power of the Pope being supreme in the Church here on earth, no one has sufficient authority either to legally determine the fact of heresy on the part of the Sovereign Pontiff or, if it should occur, to draw the penal consequences of this fact by depriving the Pope of his power.”²⁴

Fr. Gleize sees here an argument in favour of his thesis that a heretical Pope does not lose his office. However, although his remark is perfectly valid in respect of the Fourth Opinion, which requires an ecclesiastical organ to “legally determine” the papal heresy, as will be seen below,²⁵ it has no application to the Fifth Opinion, in which, according to the authentic position of St. Robert Bellarmine, no one “legally determines” the Pope’s heresy, but rather the pope tacitly resigns his office – a fact which may or may not be “legally determined” by an imperfect Council, (i.e. a Council without the Pope), after he has already forfeited the papacy.

Does not this suggest that Fr. Gleize is joining the ranks of the theologians who, by dint of specious distinctions, conclude that the heretic Pope does not lose his office at all, but continues indefinitely to poison the faithful? This position corresponds to the Third Opinion enumerated by St. Robert Bellarmine, abandoned for centuries, which entirely disregards the deep-seated incompatibility between heresy and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as I emphasized in my study of the heretical Pope.²⁶

The Confusion Rampant Among Traditionalists

18. Against this background, it is natural to wonder what repercussions Fr. Gleize’s articles are likely to produce in the traditionalist media, in which the conviction has gradually and laboriously been formed that the Pope can defect from the Faith, and, in this case, St. Paul’s warnings having been made, in one way or another he does lose the papacy. This conviction, with its solid theological foundation, provides a beacon of hope for true Catholics amid the darkness of our day. And it is critically necessary in our days for Catholics, even the best, to grasp the deep-seated incompatibility between heresy and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and not to be deceived by a false, monolithic concept of papal infallibility such as might induce them to accept the doctrinal and disciplinary disorders of the last decades.

Fr. Gleize and Cajetan

19. Cajetan, after stating that no one, not even the Church, is above the Pope, proposed a solution to the question of the heretical Pope which does not exclude the principle that the Supreme Pontiff can be judged by no one. In the words of Suarez,

“Cajetan makes extraordinary efforts to avoid being forced to admit that the Church or a Council are above the Pope in case of heresy; but finally concludes that they are above the Pope, not as Pope, but as a private person. This distinction, however, does not satisfy, because by the same argument it could be said that the Church can judge and punish the Pope, not as Pope, but as a private person.”²⁷

Cajetan’s subtleties are harshly criticized by St. Robert Bellarmine.²⁸ In his study, Fr. Gleize gives special importance to Cajetan’s position, but in the last article he recognizes, quite rightly, that “Cajetan’s explanation does not in fact avoid placing the Church above the Pope;”²⁹ hence this explanation cannot be accepted.

20. Fr. Gleize also criticizes Cajetan for interpreting St. Paul’s “Avoid him”³⁰ as meaning “Remove him from office”, whereas, in Fr. Gleize’s view, it would be possible to avoid and resist the Pope without his being “dismissed from his office”.³¹ For Fr. Gleize this aspect of “... Cajetan’s explanation ... is unquestionably a fatal weakness.”³²

Yet, St. Robert Bellarmine and Suarez do not share this view. The Holy Jesuit says: “The Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we avoid our head? How could we escape from a member united to us? This argument is most certain.”³³ And, in discussing the heretical Pope, Suarez writes: “Heresy ‘spreads like cancer,’ which is why it must be avoided as much as possible, and therefore much more should the heretical shepherd be avoided; but how can he be avoided if he does not cease to be the shepherd?”³⁴

The Real Position of St. Robert Bellarmine

21. Fr. Gleize does not refer to the true position of St. Robert Bellarmine on the Fifth Opinion. In this Opinion which he adopts as his own, Bellarmine maintains that the loss of the Papacy occurs ipso facto, by the very fact of the externalization of the Pope’s formal heresy. Here are his words: “The manifestly heretical Pope ceases of himself [“per se”] to be Pope and head, just as he ceases of himself [“per se”] to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church.”³⁵

22. Hence according to St. Robert Bellarmine, no one deposes the Pope except himself by the fact of manifesting his formal heresy before the visible Church, which thereupon withdraws from him so that he canonically forfeits his office, even if he refuses to accept this and obstinately persists in his occupation of the Apostolic Palaces and in the exercise of the papacy. What takes place is an abdication, a tacit renunciation, as a result of adopting a position incompatible with the Papacy.

23. Every other opinion as to how a heretical Pope loses his office presupposes at least one jurisdictional act of an imperfect Council, the College of Cardinals, or some other ecclesiastical organ. The only opinion of the classical doctors which does not resort to a juridical pronouncement against a still reigning Pope is that of St. Robert Bellarmine, also adopted, and in some points complemented and enriched, by Ballerini, Wernz-Vidal, Billot and others. Indeed:

• In St. Paul’s admonitions Ballerini sees of acts of fraternal correction, not of jurisdiction; and therefore of charity, not of justice. Speaking of “abdication,” he points out that no one would depose the Pope; instead he would himself be implicitly resigning from his office, and this even if he intended to keep it.³⁶

• Wernz-Vidal states, without hesitation, that according to St. Robert Bellarmine the heretical pope would lose his office only when his defection from the faith became “notorious and publicly divulged”.³⁷ As ecclesiastical law does not apply to the Pope, it is clear that “public” and “notorious” are here to be understood in their everyday or de facto meaning, and not in the technical, canonical sense.³⁸

• Billot: “On the hypothesis that a pope did become notoriously a heretic, it must be granted without hesitation that he would ipso facto lose the papal power, since by his own voluntary act he would have placed himself outside the body of the Church, becoming an infidel.”³⁹

24. In presenting the basis of his position, St. Robert Bellarmine appeals to St. Jerome, whose words are quoted verbatim by Ballerini:

“The reason why the heretic is said to condemn himself is that the fornicator, the adulterer, the murderer and other sinners are expelled from the Church by the priests; but heretics pronounce sentence against themselves, excluding themselves from the Church spontaneously: an exclusion which corresponds to their condemnation by their own conscience.”⁴⁰

25. In view of St. Robert Bellarmine’s real position, i.e. his adoption of the Fifth Opinion, it seems to me that the following statement made by Fr. Gleize calls for rectification: “For Cajetan, it is only the Church that causes the Pope’s forfeiture of office; for St. Robert Bellarmine, it is only Christ. For Suarez it is at the same time both Christ and the Church.”⁴¹ In fact, for St. Robert Bellarmine it is exclusively the Pope himself who, by embracing heresy, abandons the Church and therefore the papacy.

The Positions of St. Robert Bellarmine and of Suarez

26. According to Suarez, once formal heresy has been externalized, ipso facto Our Lord deposes the Pontiff, and then an imperfect Council declares this deposition before the visible Church. According to St. Robert Bellarmine, however, no one deposes him, not even Our Lord: it is the Pope himself who quits his office by positing an act incompatible with the papacy. Both analyses maintain that office is lost ipso facto, by the unequivocal exteriorization of formal heresy. Each position has the ipso facto element in common, but in what follows they differ. For St. Robert Bellarmine, as I have said, the loss of office is effected by the externalization of heresy. For Suarez, on the other hand, after the externalization of the heresy comes an intervention on the part of Our Lord, followed in turn by deprivation by the Council. Hence Suarez speaks improperly in employing the expression “ipso facto”.

27. That is why I classify Suarez as holding the Fourth Opinion presented by St. Robert Bellarmine, not the Fifth. According to Suarez, Our Lord deposes the Pope by an act of His own, not manifested to men. Now, the visibility of the Church would require such a deposition to be manifested to the Church militant. And Suarez, in his eclecticism to which Fr. Gleize rightly draws attention,⁴² imagines a conciliar act, which in turn would violate the principle that the Pope is subject to no ecclesiastical organ.

28. Let me repeat: St. Robert Bellarmine’s position is the only explanation of how the heretical Pope forfeits his office that does not require the intervention of any ecclesiastical organ. All others merit the criticism that St. Robert Bellarmine makes of Cajetan’s when he shows that any intervention of an official organ in the removal of a Pope would involve jurisdiction, i.e., the judgment of the Pope by the Church. Fr. Gleize’s failure to grasp St. Robert Bellarmine’s true opinion on this point is why he finds all the speculative solutions to the problem unsatisfactory. In fact, the only one that is satisfactory is that of the Jesuit doctor, which he misrepresents.

Three Theologically Certain Propositions

29. In the 1970 Brazilian edition of my study of the heretical Pope, in the French edition of 1975 and in the Italian in 2016, I stated that on the grounds of the intrinsic theological reasons underpinning the Fifth Opinion I considered it not merely probable but certain. I chose not to insist on the qualification “theologically certain” for an extrinsic reason, namely, that certain authors of weight do not adopt it.⁴³ This was also the opinion of the then Bishop of Campos, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, as expressed in a letter of 25th January 1974, when he sent my work to Paul VI, asking him to point out any possible errors (which never took place), expressly stating that he referred to the study “written by lawyer Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, with the contents of which I associate myself.”⁴⁴

Now, however, after the passage of well over four centuries since St. Robert Bellarmine’s 1588 study, I am convinced that the Fifth Opinion must be simply qualified as theologically certain, both for the intrinsic reasons on which it is based and because it is the only one of those dealing with how the heretical Pope would lose his office which does not place any ecclesiastical organ above him.⁴⁵ Moreover in recent decades numerous more or less detailed works on the heretical Pope have thoroughly scrutinized the subject, their collective outcome being to show that St. Robert Bellarmine’s positions are certain.

In any event, extrinsic probability must yield to intrinsic certainty.

30. I further think that Sub-question A, presented in footnote n° 6, should be considered resolved. Thus, I submit that the following proposition, derived in part from a passage⁴⁶ of Fr. Gleize, be taken as being theologically certain: Divine law alone can establish laws that apply to the Pope; but, since the sources of Revelation contain no sufficiently explicit teaching as to the impossibility of a pope falling into formal and notorious heresy, therefore, in dogmatic terms, there is nothing to exclude the pope from becoming a heretic or from already being one at the moment of his election.⁴⁷

Note that as formulated by Fr. Gleize⁴⁸ the meaning is that nothing in Revelation determines that the heretical Pope loses his office, whereas, in the above formulation, the conclusion is that there is nothing in Revelation to prevent the Pope from falling into heresy.

31. I also think that Sub-question B⁴⁹ must now be considered to be resolved, in the light of the cogency of the arguments of St. Robert Bellarmine and others about the Third Opinion. Thus, I propose that it be held to be theologically certain, given the deep-seated incompatibility between heresy and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and since the formal and notorious heretic ceases to be a member of the Church, that the formally and notoriously heretic Pope loses his office.⁵⁰

Back to the Issue of Certainty

32. In summary, therefore, it is proposed⁵¹ that the following be considered as theologically certain: (i) the teaching of Robert Bellarmine, Ballerini, Wernz-Vidal and Billot concerning the Fifth Opinion; (ii) that there is nothing in Revelation to exclude a Pope’s falling into heresy; and (iii) that in this case the heretical Pope must forfeit the papacy.

As a result of misrepresenting St. Robert Bellarmine’s true position of on the Fifth Opinion, and of deeming all the opinions of the ancient writers to be no more than probable, Fr. Gleize concludes that nothing is certain about the fundamental issues raised by the question of the heretical pope: “purely theological reasons ... which are only probable, and which remain insufficient to provide speculative certainty.”⁵² He maintains that we simply don’t know whether the Pope can fall into heresy; nor whether formal heresy on his part could ever be demonstrated; nor whether he would lose his office; nor whether there are any dogmatic principles applicable to the case. Thus in his view everything is left to the prudence of the faithful, and for Fr. Gleize this means refusal to follow the Pope insofar as he deviates from Catholic Tradition.⁵³

Which brings us back to the question of certainty in theology.⁵⁴

Fr. Gleize Criticizes my Study on the Heretical Pope

33. In a footnote to his first article, Fr. Gleize writes:

“The recent, but already elderly, study of Arnaldo Xavier Da Silveira, La Nouvelle Messe de Paul VI: Qu’en penser? pp. 213-281, is often cited as a reference. But close inspection reveals that Silveira did not have access to the texts of Torquemada or Cajetan: to present the thinking of these two theologians he simply uses the summary of them given by Suarez and John of St. Thomas. Moreover, he makes several errors [“se trompe plusieurs fois”] in ascribing to theologians opinions which they have only quoted without adopting them. Journet, by contrast, has clearly read Cajetan’s text closely: his discussion in L’Église du Verbe Incarné, I, pp. 625-627, contents itself with setting out Cajetan’s thought, but at least exposes it with all requisite exactitude.”⁵⁵

34. As already mentioned,⁵⁶ Fr. Gleize criticizes the position of Cajetan, which in a sense places the Church above the Pope. I saw no reason to enlarge further on this position in my book. Nor does Fr. Gleize’s remark about Torquemada seem well-founded, for the great Cardinal of the fifteenth century argued that loss of the papacy occurs even in case of purely internal heresy, an opinion long since abandoned for excellent reason.⁵⁷

35. As to the accusation that I attribute to theologians of the past opinions of others which they only quote without making them their own, this is a serious charge. Several such misrepresentations of the opinions of ancient writers would surely constitute a serious oversight and might mislead many readers.

Fr. Gleize does not specifically indicate where I commit this error, but I infer from his words that it is, perhaps among others, in treating the question of the conditional [alternative-successive] opinion. If this is so, the explanation of my position on this point, which I maintain to be both clear and logical, will be found above in the subsection entitled “The conditional [alternative-successive] opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine and others.”⁵⁸

36. I receive Fr. Gleize’s criticisms in a dispassionate and academic spirit. My respect for him and the warm appreciation with which I have always read and studied his works remain unchanged. May Mary Most Holy, Mother of God and of us all, assist and enlighten us.

---

HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE!

As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone. If you have benefitted from our content please do consider supporting us financially.

A subscription from you helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.

Plus, you will get access to our exclusive members-only material!

Thank you!

---

Read Next:

The Loss of Ecclesiastical Offices: Is Holy Church Unprotected?

Does Michael Lofton understand the arguments made in the debate on Francis?

The ignoble art of missing the point – the real arguments for Francis' non-papacy

Why was St Robert Bellarmine declared a Doctor of the Church?

---

About Da Silveira
John S. Daly

A lay theologian of long-standing international reputation, Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira was born in São Paulo, Brazil, in 1929 and graduated in law in 1956 from the São Paulo Pontifical Catholic University. He went on to study philosophy at the Central Major Seminary of the southern states of Brazil. He taught Moral Theology and Sociology in the São Bento Faculty of Philosophy, Science and Letters and at the Heart of Jesus Economics Faculty, both part of his alma mater.

In the 1960s he became a major contributor to Catolicismo – a monthly cultural and religious periodical published under the auspices of Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer.

His articles, invariably supported by abundant documentation, include titles such as:

• The Doctrinal Authority of Pontifical and Conciliar Documents (n° 202)

• It is not only Heresy that Can be Condemned by Ecclesiastical Authority (n° 203)

• Essay on Heresy: How Behaviour, Gestures, Attitudes, and Omissions Can Betray a Heretic (n°

  204; translated into English by John S. Daly)

• Reply to an Imaginary Progressive (n° 206)

• Can a document of the Magisterium Contain Error (n° 223)

• Public Resistance to the Decisions of Ecclesiastical Authority (n° 224)

They have been widely translated and reproduced. [Ed: Many are now available in the collected work Two Timely Issues.]

In 1969-70 he wrote three highly topical theological studies: (i) Considerations on the Ordo Missae of Paul VI; (ii) Modifications Introduced in the 1969 Ordo, and (iii) The Infallibility of Ecclesiastical Laws, the first of which included a substantial study on the Theological Hypothesis of the Heretical Pope. These three works were translated into French and combined to form a single book: La Nouvelle Messe de Paul VI: Qu’en penser? which was published by Diffusion de la Pensée Française and enjoyed wide readership. Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer sent a copy of this work to Paul VI expressing his agreement with its content. Paul VI intervened to prevent its publication and succeeded for a time in delaying the entry into circulation of the 1975 French edition.

In 2017 Dr. Xavier da Silveira was signatory to the Correctio Filialis de hæresibus propagatis which he sees, as explained in his January 2018 article Aprofundando Pontos da Correctio Filialis, as a step towards bringing to the attention of the entire Church the growing body evidence pointing to the conclusion that the present claimant to the Holy See is indeed a heretic.

Pending further clarification he considers him to be at least seriously suspect of heresy. He does not consider that the theologically certain proposition that a heretical pope ipso facto forfeits his office yet applies to the existing situation, pending more widespread recognition of the facts on the part of the faithful at large.

Dr. Xavier da Silveira’s recent articles may be found on his website at www.bonumcertamen.org.

1. These articles are: I - En cas de doute...; II - Le Pape peut-il tomber dans l’hérésie? La matière d’un débat; III - Du Pape et de l’hérésie; IV - François hérétique?; V - Jean XXII; VI - Le Pape qui tombe dans l’hérésie perd-il l’investiture dans le Primat? (Courrier de Rome, no 595, January 2017).

2. I cite these six articles by Fr. Gleize using Roman numerals I to VI, followed by Arabic numerals for the subdivisions of each article (e.g.: Fr. Gleize, art. VI, section 12). I shall be referring to the Potuguese, French or Italian texts of my own study using, respectively, the abbreviations XS.pt, XS.fr and XS.it, followed by page numbers (e.g.: XS.it 79). Thus:

• XS.pt refers to “Considerações sobre o ‘Ordo Missae’ de Paulo VI”, mimeographed edition, St. Paulo, Brazil, 169 pp., 1970.

• XS.fr refers to “La Nouvelle Messe de Paul VI: Qu’en Penser?”, Diffusion de la Pensée Française, Chiré en Montreuil, France, 360 pp., 1975.

• XS.it refers to “Ipotesi Teologica di un Papa Eretico”, Ed. Solfanelli, Chieti, Italia, 200 pp., 2016.

3. Fr. Gleize, art. VI, section 12.

4. The phrase “purely theological reasons ... which are only probable and remain insufficient to provide speculative certainty” is discussed in Paragraph 32 below.

5. Fr. Gleize, art. VI, section 11.

6. In my study of the heretical Pope I divide the matter according to the five opinions enumerated by St. Robert Bellarmine (XS.fr 218-219; XS.it 27-28). Here we see that the hypothesis of the heretical Pope involves three sub-questions, which authors do not always properly distinguish:

• Sub-question A – Can the pope become a heretic, or already be one at the time of his election? – Subject of the First Opinion;

• Sub-question B – If he can become a heretic, does he in consequence lose the papacy? – Subject of the Third Opinion;

• Sub-question C – If he does lose his office, how does this happen? – Subject of the Second Opinion (with regard to the heretic even occult), of the Fourth Opinion (with regard to declaration by the Church) and of the Fifth Opinion (ipso facto, upon externalization of his formal heresy).

7. St. Thomas, Sum. Th., I, q. 1, a. 2, c.

8. Op. cit., ibidem, a. 5, c.

9. Fr. Gleize, art. VI, section 11.

10. Op. cit., section 12.

11. Op. cit., art. IV.

12. Fr. Gleize, art. VI, section 6.

13. XS.pt 36 ss.; XS.fr 273 ss.; XS.it 88 ss.

14. Fr. Gleize, art. VI, section 6.

15. XS.fr 241; XS.it 50. – St. Robert Bellarmine, De Rom. Pont., lib. II, cap. 30, p. 418.

16. XS.fr 266; XS.it 79. – Op. cit., ibidem, p. 420.

17. XS.fr 220-222, 240-241; XS.it 29-31, 50-51. – Salaverri, De Eccl. Christi, p. 718.

18. Fr. Gleize, art. VI, sections 9-10.

19. XS.fr 268; XS.it 81 – Pietro Ballerini, De Potestate Ecclesiastica ..., pp. 104-105.

20. Fr. Gleize, art. III.

21. See Paragraph 9 above.

22. Fr. Gleize, art. VI, section 9.

23. Op. cit., art. III, section 5.

24. Op. cit., art. VI, section 9.

25. See Paragraphs 21-25 below.

26. See Paragraph 10 above.

27. XS.fr 259; XS.it 71. – Suárez, De Fide, disp. X, sec. VI, nn. 3-10, pp. 316-318.

28. XS.fr 260-265; XS.it 73-78. – St. Robert Bellarmine, De Rom. Pont., lib. II, cap. 30, pp. 418-420.

29. Fr. Gleize, art. VI, section 16.

30. Titus 3, 10.

31. Fr. Gleize, art. VI, section 15.

32. Op. cit., ibidem.

33. XS.fr 260; XS.it 73. – St. Robert Bellarmine, De Rom. Pont., lib. II, cap. 30, pp. 418-420 (realce nosso).

34. XS.fr 257-258; XS.it 70. Suárez, De Fide, disp. X, seç. VI, nn. 3-10, pp. 316-318.

35. XS.fr 266; XS.it 79. – St. Robert Bellarmine, De Rom. Pont., lib. II, cap. 30, p. 420 (my emphasis).

36. XS.fr 268; XS.it 82-83. – Pietro Ballerini, De Potestate Ecclesiastica ..., pp. 104-105.

37. XS.fr 278; XS.it 83-85. – Wernz-Vidal, Ius. Can., vol. II, p.517.

38. See Fr. Gleize, art. III, section 3.

39. XS.fr 224; XS.it 34. – Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, 1909, tom. I, pp. 617-618

40. XS.fr 268-269; XS.it 82. – Pietro Ballerini, De Potestate Ecclesiastica ..., pp. 104-105. [“Propterea vero a semetipso dicitur esse damnatus: quia fornicator, adulter, homicida, et caetera vitia, per sacerdotes de Ecclesia propelluntur. Haeretici autem in semetipsos sententiam ferunt, suo arbitrio de Ecclesia recedentes: quae recessio propriae conscientiae videtur esse damnatio.” St. Jerome, “Commentarii in Epistola Beati Pauli ad Titum”; Migne, Patrologia Latina, tom. XXVI, col. 598, n° 738. – J.S.D.]

41. Fr. Gleize, art. VI, section 17.

42. Op. cit., ibidem.

43. XS.pt 40; XS.fr 281; XS.it 96-97.

44. https://www.fsspx.com.br/carta-a-paulo-vi/

45. See above: Footnote no 6, Sub-question C.

46. Fr. Gleize, art. VI, section 9, quoted in Paragraph15 above.

47. See above: Footnote no 6, Sub-question C.

48. Fr. Gleize, art. VI, section 9, quoted in Paragraph15 above.

49. See Footnote no 6.

50. See XS.fr 273-275; XS.it 88-91.

51. See Paragraphs 29-31.

52. Fr. Gleize, art VI, section 11, quoted in Paragraph 3 above.

53. Op. cit., ibidem, section 15 e respectiva nota de rodapé no 20.

54. See Paragraph 7 above.

55. Fr. Gleize, art. I, section 5, note 5.

56. See Paragraph19 above.

57. Fr. Gleize, art. VI, sections 2 and 13.

58. Paragraphs 11-13 above.