Having seen a wide range of other texts from Fr Domenico Palmieri SJ, can he credibly be cited as an authority for the ‘recognise and resist’ movement?
Editor’s Notes
Having considered a number of different texts from Fr Domenico Palmieri, we are now ready to consider those texts which have been cited as evidence for the “recognise and resist” movement.
Note: The Latin text from Fr Palmieri has been translated into English with the assistance of AI, with each line subsequently checked against the original by a human, and edited in the process.
We have already seen that Fr Palmieri is cited as an authority for the “recognise and resist movement”, even though…
His references to such resistance pertain to matters other than teaching and governance1
He explicitly condemns those “who think that they can adhere to the Roman See and the Roman Church while resisting the Pontiff”
He teaches that “[I]t is the right and office of the Roman Pontiff to feed all: and the obligation of all is to follow him and obey him.”
He says that even the non-infallible teaching of the Pope calls for a “respectful silence” and “is not to be publicly contradicted”
He holds that a Pope who obstinately falls into heresy is “stripped of jurisdiction by God.”
Having examined a number of other texts from Fr Palmieri, let us now consider the text that is cited in favour of the “recognise and resist” theology.
It comes as Question I in Thesis XXIX, which is principally about ecumenical councils and their relationship with the Roman Pontiff.
For example, the text immediately preceding the question deals with those who appeal from the Pope to a council – which Fr Palmieri condemns as schismatic, heretical and absurd:
“We say that this doctrine – that it is lawful to appeal from the Pope to a Council – is schismatic, for it surrenders the Church together with its Head to due subjection, a subjection entirely necessary if one is to be a member of the Church, and denies it to the Head of the Church.
“We say that it is heretical; for it is opposed to the constant and universal doctrine of the Church and is directly adverse to the dogma of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff and the fullness of his power; and it was proscribed by Pius II (cf. l.c.) and in the Bull In Coena §. 2, and it was also declared at the Vatican Council, Session 4, Chapter 3: ‘those who affirm that it is lawful to depart from the straight path of truth by appealing from the judgements of the Roman Pontiffs to an ecumenical Council, as to an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.’
“It is, finally, an absurd doctrine. For when you appeal to an ecumenical Council, you appeal either to the Pope – who himself convoked it and presides over it – or not. If not, you do not have an ecumenical Council: rather, 2° you have an illegitimate gathering of Pastors, which, 3° however great and however extensive it may be, is entirely subject to the authority of the Pontiff. If, however, you do include [the Pope]: it is absurd that the Roman Pontiff be subjected to the coercive authority (iure subiici auctoritati coactivae) of that Synod (for an appeal requires this), which, 1° cannot exist except by the will of the Roman Pontiff; in which, 2° the supreme and full authority belongs to the same Pontiff; who therefore, 3° can annul all the decrees of that same [council] by his negative vote alone.
“The supreme and full power of the Roman Pontiff is therefore not subject to appeal.”
These comments are relevant to our own situation. It has become popular to claim that the legitimacy of the post-conciliar claimants is an issue for a future pope to decide; this escapes the charges of schism, although it does fall afoul of some of the strictures which Fr Palmieri addresses under heresy and absurdity.
But this is not the main focus of our present consideration.
Fr Palmieri and resisting the Pope
Fr Palmieri immediately proceeds to the questions, the first of which deals with resisting a true Pope, and the answer to which is cited by the advocates of the “recognise and resist” movement.
But this answer is simply not to the point. Fr Palmieri cites St Robert Bellarmine, but, the saint’s “resistance quotes” do not provide any grounds for the “recognise and resist theology”. As we have already explained elsewhere:
“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.”
For example, in the sections on “resistance”, Torquemada sets out the objection as follows, specifically excluding the question of heresy:
Hearing what both adversaries and likewise other simple faithful say—namely, that the Roman pontiff, apart from the case of heresy and by reason of the loftiness of his principate, has no judge on earth who might judge or punish his evil deeds—they ask what ought to be done against a pope, should it happen that he…
Is incorrigibly corrupted in his morals, even to the scandal of the faithful
Or that he abuses his power
Is a squanderer of the Church
Wishes to grant ecclesiastical benefices solely by simony.
In Cajetan’s sections on resistance, he sets out the crimes he has in view:
“[W]hen he sells all benefices, elevates corrupt individuals to dignities, behaves as a tyrant, gives an example of vice, and is openly filled with blasphemy, avarice, etc. […]”
Like Torquemada, he also makes clear that he is considering cases other than heresy:
“We have concluded explaining the nature of the relationship between the pope and the council in cases of heresy; it is now necessary to examine whether, in cases other than heresy, the pope is subject to the power of the council and may be deposed by it for a reason other than heresy.
“First, we must address cases that pertain to the pope’s sins. Then, we shall discuss cases arising from certain circumstances.
“Some, therefore, uphold the following opinion: that apart from the case of heresy, the pope can be deposed by a general council, and this is proven by seven reasons.”
Next, Fr Palmieri refers to Suarez. But Suarez is also very clear: he has in mind the same sorts of crimes as those mentioned by Cajetan and Torquemada:
“The fourth remedy – not unjust in itself, but more of a human expedient and fraught with peril, and therefore not to be employed without extreme necessity – is a just defence. For if the Pontiff inflicts manifest violence and unjust force, he can be resisted by way of defence, within the limits of blameless self-defence; for to repel force with force is a natural remedy, denied to no one, and it does not require a superior power or jurisdiction over the one against whom one defends oneself, but only the right and the strength to protect oneself. If one wards off harm from another, one does not punish him but rather justly avoids one’s own harm by that means.
“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.”
Suárez himself cites Cajetan in his comments.
He also agrees with these other theologians, in holding that the heresy of a Pope would give rise to the question of deposition (whether ipso facto, after a declaration, or by some other means), rather than resistance:
“I add, moreover, that even if those arguments were admitted, they would demonstrate the disadvantages and absurdities that follow from the prior antecedent, rather than confirm it. We deny, therefore, that the Church can exercise coercive force over the Pontiff, whether by censure or by any other means, unless he first falls from the pontificate, either by a voluntary renunciation accepted by the Church, or by the fault of heresy juridically declared by the Church. (n. 11)
“[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.” (n. 14)
Does this section make Fr Palmieri an authority for the ‘recognise and resist’ position?
In addition to the above, let us consider the earlier parts of this series, such as Fr Palmieri’s Corollary to Thesis XXX:
“Therefore those men miserably deceive themselves who think that they can adhere to the Roman See and the Roman Church while resisting the Pontiff.”
He also says the following about the exercise of the merely authentic magisterium:
“To the magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra, there is owed:
“1° A respectful silence – that is, he is not to be publicly contradicted, nor is the opposite doctrine to be defended, unless it is established that he himself permits that the matter be disputed among Catholics […]”
He acknowledges that this exercise of the magisterium is not infallible, and admits only that the possibility of error could justify the suspension of assent and recourse to Rome, not public resistance.
He also makes clear that the Pope who is a heretic is either deposed or to be corrected in such a way that, if he does not amend, he is deposed (depending on how one understands him), and not to be resisted indefinitely.
All in all, the matter is entirely clear: Fr Palmieri cannot justly be cited as an authority for the “recognise and resist” position.
The two questions following Question 1 deal with whether the Roman Pontiff can submit himself to the judgement of others, whether in public (Question II) or in the tribunal of Penance (Question III). Although our purpose here is giving context to what Fr Palmieri wrote about “resistance”, these questions have their own interest and so will be included below as well.
You can read more about Fr Palmieri here.
Tractatus de Romano Pontifice cum Prolegomeno de Ecclesia
Fr Dominico Palmieri SJ
Editio Altera Aucta Et In Nonnullis Emendata
Prati, 1891, pp. 700–2
Available at Archive.org
The See and the Seated: Fr Dominic Palmieri SJ against Gallican theology of the Papacy
‘Stripped of jurisdiction by God’ – Fr Palmieri SJ on the Pope Question
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.