Continuing our deep-dive into the sources of the ‘recognise and resist theology’, we’ve followed Fr Palmieri’s reference to Suárez, and found that his comments don’t help.
Editor’s Notes
The following text is taken from Fr Francisco Suárez SJ’s Defensio catholicae fidei contra anglicanae sectae errores (“Defence of the Catholic Faith Against the Errors of the Anglican Sect”). This work was written in response to King James I of England, who had Suárez’s work burnt and outlawed in his realm.
We are publishing it today as part of our ongoing investigation into the sources cited by apologists of the “recognise and resist movement.”
Note: The Latin text of Suárez’s Defensio Fidei has been translated into English with the assistance of Claude Opus 4.6, with each line subsequently checked against the original by a human.
Because of this base translation, Substack’s built-in AI-detector Pangram is suggesting a score of “22% AI”. The score drops to “0%” when Suárez’s text is removed. The editorial commentary was written entirely by myself.
For several weeks, we have been publishing texts taken from Fr Domenico Palmieri SJ’s Treatise on the Roman Pontiff, due to his being cited as an authority for this position. In the course of this series, we have seen that Fr Palmieri…
Explicitly condemns those “who think that they can adhere to the Roman See and the Roman Church while resisting the Pontiff”
Holds that a Pope who obstinately falls into heresy is “stripped of jurisdiction by God.”
Teaches that the correct response to what is taught by the “merely authentic” (and non-infallible) magisterium of the Holy See is both “religious assent” and “a respectful silence” – in that “he is not to be publicly contradicted, nor is the opposite doctrine to be defended.”
We will soon be providing a full translation of the text in which he refers to “resisting the Pope”, in which we will see that he is discussing resistance to matters other than teaching and governance, and as such cannot be cited as an authority for the “recognise and resist” movement. Before we provide this text, it seems helpful to ensure that the sources which Fr Palmieri himself cites are available for context.
Those sources are St Robert Bellarmine, and Fr Francisco Suárez SJ. We have already examined Bellarmine’s “resistance quotes”, and demonstrated – by the context both of his own work, and the authorities whom he cites (Cardinals Cajetan and Torquemada) – that the Doctor of the Church’s comments deal with a set of “papal crimes” that have nothing to do with the teaching of heresy or condemned errors, or the promulgation of harmful universal disciplinary laws.
What can be resisted?
This is made all the more clear when we consult Cardinals Cajetan and Torquemada themselves, who give lists such as the following:
Tyrannical rule
Simony
Squandering the wealth of the Church for personal gain
Deposing all bishops
General corruption and scandal
Ignoring correction
Exceeding his authority
Nor can one make an a fortiori argument, by suggesting that the legitimacy of resistance to such lesser ways of “destroying the Church” legitimises resistance to the greater way of heresy, and so on.
This is because these theologians specifically exclude heresy from such treatments – with Torquemada and St Robert Bellarmine teaching that a heretic pope is ipso facto deposed, and Cajetan teaching in one place that such a one should be deposed, and in another that he is already deposed. Cajetan explicitly distinguishes heresy from the other “destructive” actions mentioned above.1
The text from Fr Palmieri
The text cited from Fr Palmieri cites the passages from Cajetan just mentioned, indicating that he is just as inadmissible as an authority for the “recognise and resist” movement. However, Fr Palmieri also cites Suárez, and so in the interests of completeness – an interest noticeably absent in those “quote-mining” from such authors – we are publishing Suárez’s chapter in full.
We can also note that Suárez himself also cites the sections from Cajetan which we have already discussed. His comments closely follow Cajetan’s, including those about the importance of prayer. But also as with Cajetan and the others mentioned, Suárez gives a set of examples to indicate what he has in mind when discussing “resistance” to a Pope abusing his office – and these examples do not refer to the exercise of his teaching of governing power:
“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.”
There are a few points to note here.
Distinction between commands and laws
The distinction between commands and laws is crucial – it is only by conflating the two that “recognise and resist” movement can make use of such texts.
Commands are exercises of dominative power, and the Roman Pontiffs’ commands are not considered to be infallible. Laws, by contrast, are exercises of legislative power, and it is this exercise of jurisdiction that the Church teaches is “infallibly safe” (at least when universal).
As such, comments about resisting commands cannot be blithely applied to the idea of resisting universal laws.
What is a proportionate manner of resistance?
Suárez also gives examples of what it means for the Pope to be “resisted in a proportionate manner”.
The short text above refers to “taking measures to prevent such things from being carried out”; elsewhere in the text, he speaks of a “just defence” and repelling “force with force”. He also discusses the possibility of a “fraternal correction” of the Pope.
If, for the sake of argument, we were to consider how these measures might work in the post-Vatican II era, we might consider printers refusing to produce Novus Ordo liturgical books, seminaries refusing to destroy their libraries, or works such as Abbé de Nantes Books of Accusation (although perhaps written with a more deferential tone, if they are considered to be addressed to a legitimate Pontiff).
But what Suárez discusses has nothing to do with rejecting the authoritative teaching and laws of the (alleged) Supreme Pontiff, with establishing publications in opposition to them claiming to be that of the remnant faithful, or with the establishment of parallel apostolates without regard for his jurisdiction (let alone in opposition to him).
However, that which would legitimise such actions may be found in Suárez's comments about a heretical Pope.
That which some want to resist should actually point to loss of office
He writes:
“[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.”
That which the “recognise and resist” movement wishes to “resist” actually points towards a deposition, whether this deposition be understood to have taken place ipso facto upon the manifestation of heresy (whether through actions, or through the intervention of a Council), or by the positive action of the Church.
The permitted response to heresy and properly doctrinal problems is seeking to have the man deposed, not merely rejecting his teaching and laws, and establishing parallel ministries. If the “recognise and resist” advocates wished to be consistent with their principles, and faithful to those whom they cite, they would be working for a deposition of those who need to be resisted on doctrinal grounds.
Note on the text
The chapter itself is about the Roman Pontiff’s “exemption”. Throughout the work, exemptio denotes the complete non-subjection of the Supreme Pontiff to any jurisdiction other than that of Christ himself – whether the jurisdiction in question be secular or ecclesiastical, coercive or judicial. In Suárez’s argument it is a constitutional immunity rooted in the divine right attaching to the Petrine office. The purpose of the chapter is to present and answer objections to this “exemption.”
While the chapter is interesting, the relevant sections are found at the end. Fr Palmieri gives the reference “Book IV, Chapter VI, n. 16.” In the edition consulted, Ch. VI ends at n. 15, but the texts quoted by Fr Palmieri are present under n. 14 – indicating that the discrepancy is one of formatting and editions, or even a mere typo.
S.D.Wr.
Defensio Fidei Catholicæ et Apostolicæ
Adversus Anglicanæ Sectæ Errores
Fr Francisco Suárez SJ
Neapoli ex typis Fibrenianis, MDCCCLXXII
Liber Quartus, Ch. 6.
Available at Archive.org
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.