'Stripped of jurisdiction by God' – Fr Palmieri SJ on the Pope Question
If Fr Domenico Palmieri SJ is an authority for 'recognise and resist' theology, then why does he hold that a heretical Pope loses office automatically?
If Fr Domenico Palmieri SJ is an authority for ‘recognise and resist’ theology, then why does he hold that a heretical Pope loses office automatically?
Editor’s Notes
The following is another extract from Fr Domenico Palmieri SJ’s Treatise on the Roman Pontiff – namely, Scholion I of Thesis XXXII. This Scholion deals with the question of the “heretical Pope” – and whether he is deposed or should be deposed. It shows, once again, that Fr Palmieri cannot be cited as an authority for those who seek to recognise the post-conciliar claimants to the Papacy, while resisting their teaching and universal laws.
After considering whether it is possible for a Pope to fall into heresy in a private capacity – and he believes it is – Fr Palmieri states the following:
“Granting the hypothesis, the opinion is to be understood as follows: that a Pontiff obstinate in heresy – obstinate, I say: for if he himself yields to the Church’s admonition, nothing further remains to be done – is deposed not by man but by God Himself, who takes away the jurisdiction that was given; the Church merely declares that he is a heretic and that he has therefore been stripped of jurisdiction by God (Suarez, loc. cit., c. 7, n. 3).”
Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silva has argued that “deposition by God” is a misunderstanding of Bellarmine’s teaching, which Fr Palmieri appears to be following here. The actual “mechanism”, according to da Silva, is that the manifestly heretic deposes himself, tacitly renouncing the office by his embrace of that which is incompatible with it.
There is here a clear analogy with Can. 188, and while some argue that this canon cannot apply to a Pope, due to his being above canon law, it appears in part to enshrine principles of reason and the natural/divine law – as discussed eleswhere.
However, the point here is not Can. 188, but the theological point at hand: the heretical Pope is not resisted, but is rather deposed by God. He is not the Pope.
But when does this take place? As the above text indicates, Fr Palmieri also alludes to “the Church’s admonition” as a means by which obstinacy is established. Such allusions are often used to undermine the idea that the manifestly heretical Pope loses office ipso facto, without any declaration. However, even if we conceded this point for the sake of argument, we could answer with the following:
“The Church's admonitions” pertain to resolving the status of the Pope, not to indefinite resistance to his teaching and laws. If such resistance constitutes an admonition, then Paul VI was sufficiently admonished decades ago.
Building on the previous, the Pope has no superior on earth. As such, the need for an admonition is a reference not to an action of authority, as there is no authority over the Pontiff, but rather to clarity and publicity. The Fifth Position of St Robert Bellarmine pertains to one who is manifestly or openly heretical, and so such clarity and publicity is required. But if this clarity and publicity are achieved by other means, then it is hard to see why admonitions by a Council or specific churchmen are necessary for the per se effect to take place (i.e., the loss of the papacy, at least formally). The declaration which follows is merely making authoritatively clear what has already happened.
On the other hand, it is not necessary to deny that an act of authority is needed “quoad nos”, in the sense that the recognition and cognitive judgement of the vacancy is not imposed upon the faithful except by those who have authority over them. As such, the act of authority could be understood as being in some sense over the faithful, rather than the (former) Pope; but the necessity of such an act of authority for making recognition of the vacancy extrinsically obligatory does not mean that it is necessary to make such recognition possible, nor indeed intrinsically obligatory.
Fr Palmieri states that “if [the Pope] himself yields to the Church’s admonition, nothing further remains to be done”. We arrive here at a point similar to that which we have made in reference to the “Fourth Position” of Cajetan. Those of our contemporaries who wish to take refuge in ideas that entail nothing happening until a declaration is made seem to forget that the debate is between those who think that the heretical Pope is deposed (depositus) on the one hand, and is to be deposed (deponendus) on the other. The deponendus position, or the interpretation of the depositus position which requires a declaration, are not justifications for indefinite resistance to a heretical Pope, or to one imposing heresy, errors, evil laws and a new religion. Perpetual resistance, pleas for liturgical crumbs, and discussions about obtaining canonical standing do not form a part of this. On the contrary, the fourth and “declarative” fifth positions require work towards what is necessary for deposition. Is this what is happening? It is evidently not – and those who argue advocate “resistance”, and justify it by claiming to prefer the deponendus or declarative depositus positions, appear to be horrified at the very idea of a deposition or working towards one.
And thus, the “Recognise and Resist” arguments about the Heretic Pope question appear to be little more than ways of avoiding the true meaning of the Fifth Position. And this is to say nothing of the fact that the Heretic Pope question is “downstream” of the vacancy: it can be established without reference to the personal heresy of the papal claimants through other arguments, and the principles behind the Fifth Opinion offer an explanation of how these men may have ceased (or never became) true Popes. As such, even if it were to be conceded that a declaration were needed to deprive an heretical pope of office, the post-conciliar claimants still would not be true Popes.
Further, even with concessions regarding admonitions, it is once again clear: Palmieri cannot be marshalled as an authority for the “recognise and resist” ecclesiology.
You can read more about Fr Palmieri here.
Tractatus de Romano Pontifice cum Prolegomeno de Ecclesia
Fr Dominico Palmieri SJ
Editio Altera Aucta Et In Nonnullis Emendata
Prati, 1891, pp. 704–709
Available at Archive.org
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 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.