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.
Dude, who cares?! So Bergoglio isn’t the Pope because he’s a heretic. I agree. But he’s still wearing a white costume, living in the Vatican, giving orders that people obey, and making the Roman Catholic Church look completely ridiculous to the rest of the world. What are you going to DO?!
I am kind of of surprised that Dr. Xavier da Silveira didn't cite the 1917 CIC, which essentially solidifies the Fifth Position as the position of the Church. For Canon 188.4 holds that a cleric who leaves the Faith (as a heretic dies) is recognized as tacitly resigning any office in their entirety. While it IS true that the Pope is above Canon Law, the fact that the Pio-Benedictine Code includes that infers acceptance of the position.
In addition, there is a book on the life of of Pope Leo XIII in which the Cardinal Archbishop of Cincinnati, OH, who was present at Vatican I, recounts an exchange where the topic was raised: what to do with a heretic pope. The first response, according to the Archbishop was that such a suggestion was offensive to the Office, but seeing as it is possible...the Council then used the 5th position of St. Bellarmine, adding that, for the good of the faithful, the Church would declare the pope a heretic and thus had resigned his office and the See was vacant.
One criticism I must make...it really irks me when I see it...is when the word "formal" is added to any form of heresy St. Bellarmine treats. I have read a good bit of his writings (not all, so I could be wrong) and have seen where he only uses occult/secret and manifest when treating heresy. He simply did not place too much importance on if there was obstinacy when it came to judgment by a person in the practical order. In fact, it has been written by him and others that obstinacy has to be disproved by the offender (thus the reasons for trials and questions), since a man can simply and only judge what is made manifest to him and nothing more. The questions and trials allow for new information to be made manifest that could alter or change one's judgment. +++
Nevertheless, with regard to real incorporation into the visible Church of Christ of which we are now speaking, the thesis does not make any distinction between formal and material heretics, but understands everything according to our notion of material heresy which we will explain shortly, which alone is proper and genuine heresy. For if by a material heretic we understand someone who professes that he accepts the magisterium of the Church in matters of faith, while at the same time he denies something defined by the Church because he does not know it was defined, or holds some opinion which is contrary to Catholic doctrine because he falsely believes it is taught by the Church, then it would be evidently absurd to say that material heretics are outside the body of the true Church, but the very meaning of that term would be completely changed. For something is said to be only a material sin, when something is done which is materially something that is of that kind of sin, but there is no advertence or deliberate will. But in this case the rejection of the rule of the ecclesiastical magisterium is of the notion of heresy, which does not happen in this case, since it is simply an error of fact about what the rule requires. And therefore there cannot be room for even material heresy.
Therefore, since the question of whether someone is a formal or material heretic is outside the scope of this question, we will look more at another division between secret and notorious heretics.
Dude, who cares?! So Bergoglio isn’t the Pope because he’s a heretic. I agree. But he’s still wearing a white costume, living in the Vatican, giving orders that people obey, and making the Roman Catholic Church look completely ridiculous to the rest of the world. What are you going to DO?!
What do you think I should do?
I am kind of of surprised that Dr. Xavier da Silveira didn't cite the 1917 CIC, which essentially solidifies the Fifth Position as the position of the Church. For Canon 188.4 holds that a cleric who leaves the Faith (as a heretic dies) is recognized as tacitly resigning any office in their entirety. While it IS true that the Pope is above Canon Law, the fact that the Pio-Benedictine Code includes that infers acceptance of the position.
In addition, there is a book on the life of of Pope Leo XIII in which the Cardinal Archbishop of Cincinnati, OH, who was present at Vatican I, recounts an exchange where the topic was raised: what to do with a heretic pope. The first response, according to the Archbishop was that such a suggestion was offensive to the Office, but seeing as it is possible...the Council then used the 5th position of St. Bellarmine, adding that, for the good of the faithful, the Church would declare the pope a heretic and thus had resigned his office and the See was vacant.
A non Catholic can't become Pope. Thus sedevacantist position, last Pope was Pius XII.
A Pope has never uttered heresy. Whether A Pope could has not been settled (I think, but am not sure. I don't believe it's possible ).
But, it a Pope did utter heresy, he would fall from his office immediately, judged by God, without need for a trial.
I rely on Pope Paul IV.
One criticism I must make...it really irks me when I see it...is when the word "formal" is added to any form of heresy St. Bellarmine treats. I have read a good bit of his writings (not all, so I could be wrong) and have seen where he only uses occult/secret and manifest when treating heresy. He simply did not place too much importance on if there was obstinacy when it came to judgment by a person in the practical order. In fact, it has been written by him and others that obstinacy has to be disproved by the offender (thus the reasons for trials and questions), since a man can simply and only judge what is made manifest to him and nothing more. The questions and trials allow for new information to be made manifest that could alter or change one's judgment. +++
You might also like this from Billot:
Nevertheless, with regard to real incorporation into the visible Church of Christ of which we are now speaking, the thesis does not make any distinction between formal and material heretics, but understands everything according to our notion of material heresy which we will explain shortly, which alone is proper and genuine heresy. For if by a material heretic we understand someone who professes that he accepts the magisterium of the Church in matters of faith, while at the same time he denies something defined by the Church because he does not know it was defined, or holds some opinion which is contrary to Catholic doctrine because he falsely believes it is taught by the Church, then it would be evidently absurd to say that material heretics are outside the body of the true Church, but the very meaning of that term would be completely changed. For something is said to be only a material sin, when something is done which is materially something that is of that kind of sin, but there is no advertence or deliberate will. But in this case the rejection of the rule of the ecclesiastical magisterium is of the notion of heresy, which does not happen in this case, since it is simply an error of fact about what the rule requires. And therefore there cannot be room for even material heresy.
Therefore, since the question of whether someone is a formal or material heretic is outside the scope of this question, we will look more at another division between secret and notorious heretics.