Robert Siscoe
and John of St. Thomas Respond to Fr. Cekada
By Robert J.
Siscoe
Fr.
Cekada posted a response on his website to my April, 2014 article, titled Bellarmine and Suarez on the Question of a
Heretical Pope. (1) Skipping over the citations included in the article,
which confirmed that the intervention of the proper ecclesiastical authorities
is necessary for a sitting Pope to be declared deprived of his office due to
heresy, Fr. Cekada zeroed in on one point in particular: he objected to my
assertion that, according to Bellarmine, a Pope becomes a “manifest heretic” by
remaining obstinate after being publicly warned.
Now, if my assertion is correct, it reveals a fundamental flaw in one of the principle arguments (if not the principle argument) used in defense of the Sedevacantist position, which could result in an unraveling of the entire Sedevacantist thesis. Fr. Cekada, being well aware of this, reacted at once by posting an article of his own on his website in an attempt to counter my assertion. Fr. Cekada’s attempted refutation included two points: 1) He claims that Bellarmine never said a pope must be warned before losing his office due to manifest heresy. 2) He also argued that two quotations (one from Bellarmins’s fourth opinion and another from Bellarmine’s fifth opinion) which were included together in the article (separated by an ellipses) were referring to “two different issues”. As we will see later, these two quotations do not refer to two different issues, but are logically connected one to another.
I contacted Fr. Cekada directly to ask if he would allow me to respond to his public allegation (which, I’m sorry to say, was replete with sarcastic insults and name-calling), and if he would be willing to include my response beneath his own article on his website. He replied cordially by saying that his website is just not set up for that sort of thing, and furthermore, if he permitted me to respond to his public allegations, he’d have to do the same for others. Heaven forbid! But to his credit, he did edit the original article by removing most of the sarcastic insults and inappropriate name-calling, thereby bringing his article slightly more in accord with what one would expected from a person who had been elevated to the dignity of the priesthood.
As Providence would have it, after reading Fr. Cekada’s piece, and while looking up the source for a quotation I had used in the April article, I happened across an extremely thorough treatise on the deposition of a heretical pope, which, as far as I know, has never been translated into English (at least not in its entirety). I discovered it in Cursus Theologici, Tract. De Auctoritate Summi Pontificis, Disp II, Art III (1640), written by John of St. Thomas, who is considered one of the greatest minds of the “Counter-Reformation” era, as it is sometimes called. This brilliant professor of Scholastic theology and philosophy, who is recognized as one of the foremost Thomists the Church has known - possibly second only to St. Thomas himself - addresses every aspect of the question with incredible precision, utilizing Thomistic metaphysics and unassailable logic, while citing historical examples and canon law. Through the use of distinctions, he reconciles apparent contradictions in the writings of theologians over this question, and explains, in precise detail, the way in which a heretical pope falls from the Pontificate.
His treatise reveals many errors of today’s Sedevacantists, using some of the same arguments that have appeared in this publication. He even discusses, at length, and confirms the very point I made in the April 2014 article - which Fr. Cekada mocked an ridiculed as “windbaggery from someone who has no idea what he is talking about” – namely, that Bellarmine held the position that a heretical Pope must be warned before losing his office due to heresy.
I will use this response to Fr. Cekada to introduce some of the material contained in this magnificent treatise, which will likely be published, in its entirety, in an upcoming book on Sedevacantism, which should be out in the Spring of 2015.
John
of St. Thomas lists the sequence of events for the loss of office for a
heretical Pope as follows:
1)
A Pope who professes heresy is, in accord with divine law, publicly warned by the proper authorities.
2)
If the Pope shows himself manifestly obstinate after being duly warned, a
declaratory sentence is issued for the crime
of heresy, and faithful are informed that, according to divine law, he must
be avoided.
3)
Since a Pope cannot govern the Church if he must
be avoided by the faithful, God Himself severs the bond that unites the man to
the office, and he falls, ipso facto, from the Pontificate, even “before any
excommunication or judicial sentence”, by the Church, as Bellarmine himself
taught.
4)
A General Council issues a second declaration (declaration of deprivation) stating
that the Pope has deprived himself of
his office. At this point the former
pope is judged and punished by the Church.
Notice
that the declaratory sentence (#2) and
the declaration deprivation (#4) are
two separate and distinct events. This
is an important point, since it clarifies something that Sedevacantists, such
as Fr. Cekada, have missed. All they have considered, regarding this point, is
the two-fold opinion regarding how a heretical pope loses his office: one
opinion maintains that the Church deposes the pope; the other holds that he
loses his office ipso facto, and the
Church merely confirms what has already taken place (thereby avoiding the
heresy of Conciliarism, which claims that the Church has authority over a
pope). But both of these opinions only pertain
to the final declaration. What the
Sedevacantists have failed to grasp is that before we get to the declaration of
deprivation (point #4), both opinion agree that the Church must establish that
the Pope has fallen into heresy.
This
point was explained by the canonist S.B. Smith.
In his classic work, Elements of
Ecclesiastical Law (1881), we find the following:
“Question: Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure,
of the Pontificate?
"Answer: There are two opinions: one holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church - i.e., by an ecumenical council or the College of Cardinals.” (2)
"Answer: There are two opinions: one holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church - i.e., by an ecumenical council or the College of Cardinals.” (2)
It
only makes sense that a Pope would not lose his office without the Church performing
the ministerial function necessary to establish the crime, since if a pope were
to lose his office without the Church knowing about, or in any way being involved
in the process, Catholics would never have absolute certainty that a pope who
defined a dogma, or ratified a council, was a true pope, or an antipope, since they
would never have absolute certainty that he had not previously fallen into
heresy and thereby lost his office. Everything
would be in a state of uncertainty and left to the private judgment of each individual
to decide. The scrupulous would be
paralyzed by doubt, and the instable would fall into the most outrageous
conclusions.
"As of January
2014, I have discovered conclusive evidence that all the so-called popes and
cardinals from Innocent II (1130-1143) onward have been
idolaters or formal heretics and thus were apostate antipopes and apostate
anticardinals.”
This
is where the Protestant notion of private judgment leads, when it is used as
the basis for determining who is and who is not a true Pope. For this reason, a pope does not lose his
office ipso facto by divine law, without the Church first establishing the
fact of the crime.
The Necessity of
a Warning
St.
Bellarmine lists five opinions regarding the loss of office for a heretical
Pope. The fourth and fifth opinions
refer to the two opinions discussed above by Fr. Smith – namely, whether a
heretical Pope loses his office ipso
facto (fifth opinion), or is jure
divino deposable (fourth opinion). Bellarmine holds to the more common fifth opinion regarding this question.
“Therefore, the true opinion is the
fifth” wrote Bellarmine, “according to which the Pope manifestly a heretic
ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a
Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be
judged and punished by the Church.”
But
the question dealt with in the April article still remains: what did Bellarmine
himself mean by the term “manifest heretic”?
The
answer is not given in Bellarmine’s explanation and defense of the fifth
opinion, but is found in his objection and refutation of the fourth
opinion.
In his objection to the fourth opinion, Bellarmine employed the use of a syllogism (4) in order to arrive at a theological conclusion that refutes it. A theological conclusion is a conclusion derived from two premises, one of which is a revealed truth (the Major), while the other is a truth known by reason (the Minor). The following is the syllogism used by Bellarmine.
Major: According to
St. Paul, a heretic must be avoided after two warnings.
Minor: A Pope who
remains Pope cannot be avoided (for how could the Church avoid its head?).
Conclusion: A manifest
heretic cannot be the pope.
The
following is all contained in a single paragraph in the original:
Now, before showing how this syllogism requires a warning for a pope to be considered a manifest heretic, I need to address Fr. Cekada’s primary argument against my April article. He claimed that a single quotation from the article, which included a statement from Bellarmine’s fourth opinion, along with a statement from the fifth opinion (the two being separated by an ellipses), were completely unrelated. He wrote: “You don’t have to be a Latinist to figure out that two passages with several intervening columns in small print might just possibly refer to two different issues.” He then used this assertion as the basis for a sarcastic ad hominem attack, which, unfortunately, is a common tactic of Fr. Cekada against anyone who dares to write against the errors of Sedevacantism.
What Fr. Cekada apparently didn’t realize (or pretended not to realize), is that the two quotations included the Major from the syllogism (found in the fourth opinion), along with a statement from the fifth opinion that is virtually identical to the Conclusion of the syllogism. Hence, there is a logical relation between the two citations, which Fr. Cekada claimed not to see. The following is how the syllogism reads when the quotation from the fifth opinion replaces the Conclusion from the syllogism in the fourth opinion:
Major: According to St. Paul, a heretic must be avoided after two warnings.
Minor: A Pope who
remains Pope cannot be avoided. But how
can we avoid our head?
Conclusion: The Pope
manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope.
A
simple comparison between the above Conclusion
(statement taken from the fifth opinion), and the Conclusion found in the syllogism in the fourth opinion (“the manifest heretic cannot be Pope”), shows
that the two statements are virtually identical. Therefore, quoting the Major from the fourth
opinion, along with the above statement from the fifth opinion (as was done in
the April article), was not connecting together “two
different issues”,
as Fr. Cekada claimed. Rather, the latter
half of the quote is the logical
conclusion to the former when you add the Minor. Did Fr. Cekada really
not notice this?
How
much more appropriate would it have been for Fr. Cekada to e-mailed me directly
for a clarification, rather than posting a sarcastic and insulting article on
his website for all the world to see? Is
such common courtesy too much to expect from a priest? The question that
remains is whether Fr. Cekada will be honest enough to remove the public detraction
from his website, now that he has been alerted to his mistake.
Now
back to the main the issue: what did Bellarmine mean by the term “manifest
heretic”? Notice that the Major in
Bellarmine’s syllogism (the revealed premise used to establish why a manifestly
heretical pope loses his office) requires
a warning, according to the authority of St. Paul. What this shows is that, according to
Bellarmine, a pope is not considered a manifest heretic prior to being warned. Fr.
Cekada denies this and instead claims the only reason Bellarmine quoted the
verse (Titus 3:10) was to show that “heresy is a type of self-judgement that
puts you (and by extension, a heretical pope) outside the Church.” But, with all due respect, Fr. Cekada is
mistaken. That’s not why Bellarmine cited
that particular verse. It was quoted
because a warning is necessary. In fact,
this principle of divine law is
enshrined in canon law, which also requires that a warning be given (canon
2314.2) followed by a declaratory sentence (2223.4). In fact, a warning is considered so essential
that it is even required for a prelate who publicly defects from the Faith
(Canon 188.4) by joining a false religion, whether formally (sectae acatholicae nomen dare) or
informally (publice adhaerere). Although canon law does not require a
declaratory sentence in this instance, it does require a warning before the
office is rendered vacant. (5) This
shows how absolutely essential the
Church considers a warning to be, before an office is rendered vacant due to
heresy.
The Purpose of a
Warning
The
purpose of the warning is to establish whether or not the person is
pertinacious in his rejection of a dogma, rather than merely mistaken, or
perhaps only guilty of a regrettable statement made out of human weakness. Since
pertinacity is a necessary element of
heresy, it does not suffice that its presence be presumed; it must be confirmed. A warning is a means for establishing whether
a person in material heresy is or is not pertinacious. If a warning is necessary to establish
pertinacity in the case of a priest or Bishop (according to canon law), why
would it be unnecessary in the case of a Pope? Is the bar set lower for “he who
judges all and is judged by no one”, than for those of a lower rank?
Commenting
on the proposition that a pope who is externally a heretic, but who has not
been warned, remains pope, John of St. Thomas wrote:
“This statement… is obvious and is not contradicted by Bellarmine. The truth is evident for the following
reason: the pope insofar as he is externally a heretic, if he is prepared to be
corrected, cannot be deposed (as we have said above), and the Church, by divine law, cannot declare him deposed, as it
cannot yet avoid him, since, according to the Apostle [Paul], ‘a man who is a
heretic is to be avoided, after the first and second warning’. Therefore,
before the first and second warning, he is not to be avoided by the Church... Therefore,
it is falsely said that a Pontiff, by the very fact that he is a heretic
externally is deposed: truly, he is able to be so publicly as long as he has
not yet been warned by the Church....”
“Is
it not true that, confronted with such a danger to the faith, any subject can, by fraternal correction,
warn their superior, resist him to his face, refute him and, if necessary, summon
him and press him to repent? The Cardinals, who are his counselors, can do
this; or the Roman Clergy, or the Roman Synod, if, being met, they judge this
opportune. For any person, even a private person, the words of Saint Paul to
Titus hold: ‘Avoid the heretic, after a
first and second correction, knowing that such a man is perverted and sins,
since he is condemned by his own judgment’ (Tit. 3, 10-11). For the person, who, admonished once or
twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a
manifest or defined dogma - not being able, on account of this public
pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which
requires pertinacity - this person declares himself openly a heretic. He
reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the
Church, in such form that now no declaration or sentence of anyone whatsoever
is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church. (…) Therefore the Pontiff who after such
a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by
the Synod, maintained himself hardened in heresy and openly turned himself away
from the Church, would have to be avoided,
according to the precept of Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage
to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly
proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to
him. Thus, the sentence which he had
pronounced against himself would be made known to all the Church, making
clear that by his own will he had turned away and separated himself from the
body of the Church, and that in a certain way he had abdicated the Pontificate…” (6)
“One
sees then that in the case of a heresy, to which the Pontiff adhered privately,
there would be an immediate and efficacious remedy… for in this hypothesis whatever would be done against him
before the declaration of his contumacy and heresy, in order to call him to
reason, would constitute an obligation of
charity, not of jurisdiction; and if,
after his turning away from the Church had been made manifest, there was a sentence passed on him by
the Council, such a sentence would be pronounced against one who was no longer
Pope nor superior to the Council.” (7)
And
it doesn’t suffice that the warning be given by a private individual. John of St. Thomas addresses this point directly. In the following quote, he begins by noting
that even Bellarmine maintains that a warning is required - the very point I
made in the April article, which Fr. Cekada ridiculed. He then explains why the warning must come
from the proper authorities, and why a public declaration must follow if the
warning goes unheeded. He wrote: “in
truth, Bellarmine objects [to the fourth opinion] by saying the Apostle teaches
that a heretic, after two warnings,
must be avoided,” and then added:
“A heretic ought to be avoided after two
juridical warnings made by Church authority, and not according to private judgment. For great confusion would follow in the
Church if it would suffice that this warning could be made by a private
individual...”
He
then explains why it is necessary for
the Church to issue a public declaration advising the faithful that, according
to divine law, the man is to be avoided.
“For the pope’s heresy cannot be public
to all of the faithful except by an indictment brought by others. But the indictment of an individual does not
bind, since it is not juridical, and consequently none would be obliged to
accept it and avoid him. Therefore, it
is necessary that, just as the Church designates the man and proposes him to
the faithful as being elected Pope, thus also the Church declares him a heretic
and proposes him as one to be avoided.”
The Effect of
the Warning and Declaratory Sentence
John
of St. Thomas has some very interesting things to say about the effects of the
warning and declaratory sentence, and how these relate to the loss of office.
“The Church is able to declare the crime of a Pontiff and, according to
divine law, propose him to the faithful as a heretic that must be avoided. The Pontiff, however, by the fact of having
to be avoided, is necessarily rendered impotent by the force of such a
declaration, since a Pope who is to be avoided is unable to influence the
Church as its head.”
Being incapable of effectively ruling the Church due to his manifest heresy, God himself severs the bond that unites the man to the office, and he falls ipso facto from the Pontificate - even before being formally declared deprived of the Pontificate by the Church.
It
should also be noted, as Fr. Wernz S.J. observed, that the declaratory sentence
of the crime “does not have the
effect of judging a heretical pope, but of demonstrating that he has already
been judged.” (8) Pope Innocent III made this same point, which highlights a
distinction made by the canonists between judging the Pope, and declaring him judged. Commenting on the verse “if the salt lose its
savor, it is good for nothing,” Pope Innocent wrote:
“[T]he Roman Pontiff … should not
mistakenly flatter himself about his power, nor rashly glory in his eminence or
honor, for the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. I say ‘less’ because he can be judged by men,
or rather shown to be judged, if he
clearly loses his savor to heresy, since he ‘who does not believe is already
judged’ (John 3:18)…” (9)
John of St. Thomas goes on to explain how the Church plays a ministerial part in the deposition, rather than an authoritative part, since the Church has no authority over a Pontiff - even in the case of heresy. He employs the Thomistic concepts of form and matter to explain how the union between the man and the pontificate is dissolved. A distinction is made between the man (the matter), the Pontificate (the form), and the bond that unites the two. He explains that the Church plays a ministerial part in the deposition of a Pope, just as she plays a ministerial part in the election. During the election of a Pope, the Church designates the man (the matter), who is to receive the pontificate (the form) immediately from God. Something similar happens when a Pope loses his office due to heresy. Since “the Pope is constituted Pope by the power of jurisdiction alone” (10) (which he is unable to effectively exercise if he must be avoided) when the Church issues the declaratory sentence and presents him to the faithful as one that must be avoided, the Church thereby introduces a disposition into the matter (the man) that renders him incapable of sustaining the form (the Pontificate). God responds to this legitimate act of the Church (which it has a right do to in accord with divine law) by withdrawing the form from the matter, thereby causing the man to fall from the Pontificate.
John
of St. Thomas delves deeper into this point by clarifying that the Church acts
directly on the matter, but only indirectly
on the form (the Pontificate). He
describes this point using the analogy of man.
He explains that just as the generative act of man does not produce the
form (the soul), neither does that which corrupts and destroys the matter (disease,
etc) directly touch the form - nor does the corrupting element directly cause
the separation of the form from the matter (but only renders the matter
incapable of sustaining the form) - so too is it with the election and
deposition of the Pope. In both cases the
actions of the Church are directed to the matter (the man) and only indirectly and ministerially to the form (the Pontificate). In the election, the Church designates the
man (matter) who is to receive the form (Pontificate). In the deposition, the Church juridically
declares the man to be judged and therefore to be avoided, and God Himself severs
the bond that unites the form to the matter, causing the man to fall from the
Pontificate.
Of
course, none of this has occurred with the post-conciliar Popes, who, faced
with a public and solemn warning, may very well have renounced their errors and
claimed they never intended teach other than what the Church herself teaches.
Yet Sedevacantists, based on a hasty and superficial reading of Bellarmine, skip over all this and take matters into their own hands. Imagining that a manifest heretic is one they personally judge to be a heretic, they conclude that if they themselves become “morally certain” that the man is guilty of heresy it must mean he is not the pope. They then write articles explaining to others how they too can “detect” heresy in the pope in the hope that they will also become “morally certain” the man is a heretic and adopt the Sedevacantist position. This is one of their means of proselytism.
The
Church is a visible society; who is and who is not a member of the hierarchy is
not a matter of personal opinion. John
of St. Thomas addresses this point directly, when he said a pope who is a
manifest heretic, according to private judgment, remains pope. He wrote:
“So long as he has not been declared to
us juridically as an infidel or heretic, be he ever so manifestly heretical
according to private judgment, he remains, as far as we are concerned, a member
of the Church, and consequently its head. The Church’s judgment is required,
whereby he is proposed [to the faithful] as a non-Christian, and therefore to
be avoided. It is only then that he
ceases to be pope as far as we are concerned.”
John
of St. Thomas also discusses at length why only
a General Council (an “imperfect council”) can declare the See vacant. We find
the same teaching in Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae,
which states that, in the case of a Pope who is a notorious heretic, only a Council would have the right to
declare his See vacant:
“Given that, as a private person, the Pontiff could indeed become a
public, notorious, and obstinate heretic… only a Council would have the right
to declare his see vacant so that the usual electors could safely proceed to an
election.” (11)
This
teaching is in perfect harmony with the following from St. Bellarmine
himself. He begins by explaining how the
faithful can distinguish a true prophet (12) from a false prophet, namely, by
“watching carefully to see if the one preaching says the contrary of his
predecessors”. Then, a paragraph later
he adds:
“We must point out, besides, that the
faithful can certainly distinguish a true prophet from a false one, by the rule
that we have laid down, but for all that,
if the pastor is a bishop, they cannot depose him and put another in his place.
For Our Lord and the Apostles only lay down that false prophets are not to be listened to by the people, and not that they depose them. And
it is certain that the practice of the Church has always been that heretical bishops be deposed by
bishop's councils, or by the Sovereign Pontiff.” (13)
Objection
Answered
At
this point an objection needs to be addressed.
Fr. Cekada has attempted to counter a number of articles against Sedevacantism
by claiming that these were referring to the crime of heresy, while, according to him, the loss of office is caused
by the sin of heresy. Here is one such example:
“Like many
who have written against sedevacantism, one fundamental flaw runs through Mr.
Sparks’ article (…) Heresy is both a crime (delictum) against canon
law and a sin (peccatum) against divine law. … It is by violating the divine law through the sin (peccatum) of heresy that a heretical pope loses his authority – ‘having
become an unbeliever,’ as Cardinal Billot says, ‘he would by his own will be cast outside the
body of the Church’.” (14)
Notice
that Fr. Cekada quotes Cardinal Billot in support of his position. What he
doesn’t tell his readers (or even indicate by an “ellipses”) is that he is only
quoting half of a sentence. If you read
the entire sentence you see that the Cardinal is not speaking merely of the sin of heresy, as Fr. Cekada would have
his readers believe, but of notorious
heresy, which is a crime. (15) Here is the complete sentence:
“Given, therefore, the hypothesis of a
pope who would become notoriously
heretical, one must concede without hesitation that he would by that very
fact lose the pontifical power, insofar as, having become an unbeliever, he
would by his own will be cast outside the body of the Church.” (15)
What the half sentence giveth, the complete sentence taketh away. If it was the sin of heresy alone that caused the loss of office, a pope who fell into occult (secret) heresy would also cease to be pope. Yet, as Bellarmine teaches (citing the authority of Melchor Cano): “the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope.” (17)
Fr. Cekada’s position is also contradicted by John of St. Thomas who, no less than twelve times, states that it is the crime of heresy that causes the Pope to lose his office. Numerous examples have already been cited in this article. One more will suffice: John of St. Thomas speaks of “the deposition itself, which must be done after the declarative judgment of the crime.”
Another
authority that contradicts Fr. Cekada is the highly respected commentary on
canon law by Wernz-Vidal. Speaking of
the case of a manifestly heretical pope, Wernz-Vidal says “the General Council declares the fact of the crime by which the heretical
pope has separated himself from the Church and deprived himself of his
dignity." (18)
Now
Fr. Cekada himself quotes Wernz-Vidal when it supports his position. Is he also
willing to accept its weighty authority when it contradicts his personal opinion?
If so, he will be forced to revise many of his arguments in favor of
Sedevacantism, and address many others than he simply dismissed.
“So, it should be clear to all, that
heresy is a crime against canon law and a sin against the divine law. ‘It is by
violating the divine law through the sin
of heresy that a heretical pope loses his authority – “having become an
unbeliever…” as Cardinal Billot says, “he would by his own will be cast outside
the body of the Church”.’” (19)
Notice that Mr. Ming not only parrots Fr Cekada, but he even quotes the same half sentence from Cardinal Billot (out of context) to make his point. Here we see the danger of following Sedevacantist priests without double-checking their sources and verifying the accuracy of their teachings.
As
we have seen, a juridical warning is an integral part of the process for a Pope
to lose his office due to manifest heresy, since it serves as a means of
establishing pertinacity, which is a necessary element of heresy. Once pertinacity is established, the Pope’s heresy
must be manifest to all by a
declaratory sentence of the crime issued
by the proper authorities. Without this
intervention by the proper authorities, a Pope who appears externally to be a
heretic retains his office.
This explains why Fr. Paul Laymann, S.J., (d. 1635), “one of the greatest moralists and canonists of his time” (20) said that a Pope who fell into heresy, but was nevertheless being tolerated by the Church, would remain Pope.
“It is more probable that the Supreme
Pontiff, as a person, might be able to fall into heresy and even a notorious
one, by reason of which he would merit to
be deposed by the Church, or rather declared
to be separated from her. (…) Observe, however, that, though we affirm that
the Supreme Pontiff, as a private person, might be able to become a heretic and
therefore cease to be a true member of the Church, (…) still, while he was tolerated by the Church, and
publicly recognized as the universal pastor, he would really enjoy the
pontifical power, in such a way that all his decrees would have no less
force and authority than they would if he were truly faithful.” (21)
As bad as one may think the post-Vatican II Popes have been, they have not been publicly warned or declared guilty of heresy by the proper authorities, and therefore have retained their office. And since “it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature that he be subject to the Roman Pontiff,” (22) those who follow Fr. Cekada into Sedevacantism place their souls in mortal danger. This shows the wisdom of the decree from the Fourth Council of Constantinople, which forbade anyone to separate himself from communion with his patriarch before a careful enquiry and judgment in synod, attaching the grave penalty of excommunication to any laymen or monk who dared to do otherwise.
“As divine scripture clearly proclaims,
‘Do not find fault before you investigate, and understand first and then find
fault’. And does our law judge a person without first giving him a hearing and
learning what he does? Consequently this holy and universal synod justly and
fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should
separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful inquiry
and judgment in synod, even if he alleges that he knows of some crime
perpetrated by his patriarch, and he must not refuse to include his patriarch's
name during the divine mysteries or offices. (…) If anyone shall be found
defying this holy synod, he is to be debarred from all priestly functions and
status if he is a bishop or cleric; if a
monk or lay person, he must be excluded from all communion and meetings of the
church [i.e. excommunicated] until he is converted by repentance and
reconciled” (The Fourth Council of Constantinople, Canon 10).
The
Council decreed what it did for a reason.
Fr. Cekada ignores this decree and attempts to persuade the scandalized
faithful that they must do precisely what the council punishes with an
excommunication. “There is a way that
seemeth right to man, but the end thereof is death”. Fr. Cekada may honestly believe that the last
6 or 7 men elected pope, and recognized as Pope by virtually the entire words
(Catholic or not), were, in fact, not real Popes. In fact, he may be just as certain of this
point as he is that the papacy is lost due to the sin of heresy. Caveat
Emptor!
Footnotes
1)
Catholic
Family News, R. Siscoe, April, 2014
2)
Elements
of Ecclesiastical Law, Rev. SB Smith DD (Benzinger Br., New York, 1881), 3rd
ed., p. 210
3)
Ibid.
Preface
4)
A
syllogism is an argument containing three propositions: two premises (a minor
and a major) and a conclusion.
5)
This
point is discussed at length by Rev. Augustine, OSB, DD, Professor of Canon
Law, in his book A Commentary on Canon
Law, Vol VIII, Bk 4, (Herder Book Co, 1922), pp 278-80.
6)
De
Potestate Eecclesiastica, Ballerini (Monasterii Westphalorum, Deiters 1847) ch.
6, sec. 2, p. 124-25
7)
Ibid.
8)
Ius
Decretalium (1913) II.615
9)
Between
God and Man: Sermons of Pope Innocent III, Sermon IVp. 48-49
10)
De
Comparatione Cuctoritatis Papae et Conciliin, by Cardinal Cajetan, English
Translation in Conciliarism & Papalism, by Burns & Izbicki (Cambridge
University Press, New York, NY 1997) p 76
11)
Manuale
Theologiae Dogmaticae, J.M. Herve, 1943, I.501
12)
“Prophet”
in this sense refers to a teacher of heavenly things, and not necessarily one
who foretells the future (see Summa II-II Q171, A3
13)
De
Membris Ecclesiae, Lib. I De Clericis, cap. 7. Opera Omnia, Paris: Vives, 1870
p. 428-429
14)
Sedevacantism Refuted?, Fr. Cekada
15)
See
Canons 2197.2 & 2197.3 of the 1917 Code
16)
De
Ecclesia, 1927, 5th ed. 632
17)
De
Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30
18)
Wernz-Vidal,
Jus Canonicum (Rome, 1943), II, 518
19)
Open
Letter to John Vennari. http://www.novusordowatch.org/open_letter_to_John_Vennari.htm
20)
Catholic
Encyclopedia, 1913, Vol. IX, p. 95
21)
Laymann,
Theol. Mor., Lib, tact I, cap, VII, Cited in “Hypothesis of a Heretical Pope”,
p. 196
22)
Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface VIII
