Could a Pope destroy the Church? John de Torquemada answers
Cardinal Torquemada's list of ways this might happen doesn't include teaching heresy and errors, or imposing evil laws or a new religion.
Cardinal Torquemada's list of ways this might happen doesn't include teaching heresy and errors, or imposing evil laws or a new religion.
The following text is from the medieval theologian John de Torquemada (1388-1468), sometimes referred to as Tourquemada or Turrecremata.
Torquemada was not the famous inquisitor: that was his nephew, Thomas de Torquemada.
St Robert Bellarmine refers to this chapter in two key texts of his own, when dealing with the possibility of a pope who tries to destroy the Church.
Over the past sixty years, these “resistance quotes” from Bellarmine have been presented as justifying a programme of recognising the continuing legitimacy of an alleged pope who is a heretic, teaches heresy, or attempts to impose a new religion on the Church, whilst resisting those doctrinal or legislative acts which are contrary to the good of the Church.
Evil popes vs heretic popes
In fact, Bellarmine’s texts are dealing with an entirely different situation, namely a wicked, tyrannical or evil pope. As such, they cannot be taken as evidence that a true pope can destroy the Church doctrinally and in her laws whilst retaining office.
This is evident from Bellarmine’s own work, but it is also evident in the texts which he cites—including the below. The very first paragraph of this chapter sets out the sorts of ways in which a pope might try to destroy the Church.
It does not include the teaching of heresy and error, the promulgation of evil laws and liturgy, or the imposition of a new religion.
Commands vs. Laws
Each of the ways proposed by Torquemada entail either scandalous behaviour or commands. They do not involve teaching or laws (or at least not universal laws).
This is very significant. The idea of “resisting the pope” is not, in itself, problematic, providing we are clear what we are and are not saying.
Fr Damien Dutertre RCI explains the problem with conflating commands with teaching and laws in this department:
The particular commands, and the personal actions of the pope, are not the object of the special assistance promised by Christ to His Church through the divine institution of the papacy. They may sometimes be legitimately resisted and denounced.
What cannot be resisted, and what is always guaranteed by the assistance of the Holy Ghost are decisions on faith and morals, imposed on the universal Church, as well as universal disciplinary and liturgical laws, such as the promulgation of a new rite of the Mass. These have always been recognized as infallible by the doctors of the Church, and on that account, could never become the object of a “resistance.” For in these the faithful cannot be mislead, lest the words of Pope Leo XIII become true:
If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man. “Lord, if we be in error, we are being deceived by Thee.”1
Torquemada and the heretic pope question
It is ironic that the advocates of the contrary ideas feel like they can cite Torquemada as an authority for their programme of resistance, and for the continued legitimacy of a heretic pope.
This is because Torquemada himself held to what Bellarmine later called “the second opinion” on the pope heretic question:
“[T]he second opinion is that the pope, by that very fact (eo ipso) that he falls into heresy (even if only interiorly) is outside the Church and deposed by God; therefore, he can be judged by the Church, that is, declared to have been deposed by divine law, and deposed in fact (de facto) if he still refuses to yield.
“This is the position of John of Turrecremata in Book 4, Part 2, Chapter 20; but it does not convince me.”
Torquemada's embrace of this opinion means that his arguments assume that a heretic pope being resisted has already ceased to be pope. This text cannot, therefore, be an authority for a programme of “recognise and resistm”
This is aside from the fact that the text is not even dealing with resisting papal teaching or laws.
By contrast to Torquemada, Bellarmine presents “the fifth opinion”—which holds that a manifest heretic ceases ipso facto to be pope—as “true” and “certain,” contingent on it being possible for a pope to fall into heresy.
Conclusion
There are passages in Torquemada’s text which may seem to suggest that, in cases of heresy, a pope should be subject to the judgment of a council.
But given that he believed that even secret, internal heresy causes a pope to fall from office, his opinion here can hardly be marshalled in favour of such an idea.
The key point of this text is that it provides an illustration of what Bellarmine had in mind, when writing his “resistance quotes”—and it did not entail a heretic pope, or one who imposes his heresy on the Church, or promulgates laws that run counter to the faith.
That said, although it does not directly apply to our situation, there are several pieces of helpful advice for us today.
How could a Pope try to destroy the Church?
Cardinal John de Torquemada—Summa de Ecclesia
Chapter 106: On the remedies against a pope who, by his depraved morals, scandalises the Church
Original text from Hathi Trust. Base text translated by AI, each line scrutinised by a human.
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.
To these we respond, that there are several remedies.
To find out what those remedies are, join The WM Review as a monthly or annual member today.
Our work takes a lot of time and energy. Please consider subscribing if you like it.
Here’s why you should take out a membership of The WM Review today:
Help us continue building the case for a restrained, theological approach to the crisis in the Church
Support an eclectic and sometimes eccentric variety of content
Provide FREE membership to clergy/seminarians (subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
A small monthly membership really helps us keep The WM Review going. Can you chip in today?
1. Fraternal correction
The first remedy is humble admonition and fraternal, charitable correction, which, as we have said above, also extends to superiors.
In such a case, he ought to be gently admonished, exhorted, and entreated by the lord Cardinals and prelates, as well as by other notable prelates and lords and by religious men, that he might deign to correct and amend his life—which is a scandal to many—and, as he is bound, to live in such a way that his life may be an example of holiness to all.
For the sake of exhortation, certain sayings from sacred scripture should also be recalled. Thus the Lord says to the apostles in Matthew 18:
“But whoever shall scandalise one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone be hanged about his neck and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea.”
How much more condemned, then, is he who scandalises the universal Church.
Likewise, certain statements from the holy fathers and doctors, such as that of Blessed Gregory, found in c. Praecipue 1, q. 3:
“Prelates ought to know that if they ever commit perverse deeds, they deserve as many deaths as the examples of perdition that they pass on to their subjects. Hence it is necessary that they guard themselves all the more cautiously from guilt, for by the wicked deeds they commit, not only do they themselves perish.”
2. Prayer that God convert him or remove him
The second remedy, where the preceding one might find no place, is devout prayer.
In that case, the entire body of the faithful, at the direction of the Church’s prelates, must pray for the Supreme Pontiff, that the Lord may either enlighten him or remove him from our midst.
The doctors commonly assign this remedy, which ought to be deemed of no small power: for if, according to sacred scripture (James 5), the persistent prayer of one righteous person is said to avail much, how much more the prayer of all the righteous who adorn the Bride of Christ throughout the world.
Saint Thomas offers an example of this in his Book on the King and the Kingdom, saying that if no human aid at all can be had against a tyrant, one must turn to the king of all, God, who is our helper in times of need and tribulation; for it falls under his power to turn the tyrant’s heart to gentleness, as in the saying of Solomon:
“The king’s heart is in the hand of God, and whithersoever he wills, he shall turn it.”
It was he who turned the cruel heart of King Assuerus to gentleness, for that king was preparing death for the Jews; likewise, it was he who turned the cruel Nabuchodonosor to such devotion that he became a preacher of the divine power. Such are his words.
By aid of this remedy, the Church was delivered from Anastasius II, who was struck down by the prayers of the righteous; for, as he was riding a donkey, he discharged his intestines and died, as is related in c. Anastasius Dist. 19 (with the gloss). Likewise, the blessed Hilary employed this same remedy and prevailed by praying against Pope Leo (or against Liberius, according to others).
3. Resistance
The third remedy, if by the hidden judgement of God the preceding means prove unavailing, is resistance.
For it would be necessary to withstand him openly—by two Cardinals reproaching his evil deeds to his face and convicting him by arguments, and likewise by opposing the scandals and anything the pope might attempt—just as Paul resisted Peter because he was not walking according to the truth of the Gospel (Gal. 2).
And just as subjects would resist and oppose a bishop, abbot, or prior who squandered the Church’s property, so too in the present case: if (as master Peter Paludanus illustrates) the pope wished to give the Church’s treasure to his relatives, or to demolish the church of Saint Peter in order to build palaces for his family, or to bestow Saint Peter’s patrimony (an act which is forbidden), or do anything else of that sort—although such a thing is unlikely, he must not be allowed to carry it out, but ought to be resisted and not obeyed, yet without being deposed.
Likewise, if he wished to attempt anything generally against the status of the universal Church—such as deposing all bishops or other measures by which the universal Church would be disturbed—then, as Hostien., Innocentius, and Archydia. say, the pope should not be tolerated (i.e., permitted to do this), but one ought nevertheless to resist him with humility and reverence.
4. Reject certain evil acts as invalid
Fourth, bearing in mind that, as Saint Thomas says in II–II, 4, c. arg. 2, the pope can incur simony just like any other man, and that to assert the contrary is erroneous (as the same author states in Distinction 25 of Book Four), one possible remedy might be simply not to accept those actions carried out by him in an evil manner, against the reverence and law of God—namely, any promotions, provisions of benefices, and collations manifestly made through simony.
For, since such persons presume to enter the Church not through Christ, who is the door, but by another way, they must be deemed not pastors of the churches but thieves and robbers, in testimony of the truth itself in John 10:
“Amen, amen I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the sheepfold but climbs up by another way, that man is a thief and a robber.”
Hence Pope Gregory judges seven such ordinations to be invalid in c. Ordinationes, 1, q. 1.
5. Call a General Council
The fifth remedy is to convene a general council, which should be convoked by the Cardinals if the pope himself is unwilling to assemble it, or by others if they also fail in their duty—and this not in order to depose the pope, because, as previously demonstrated, they could not possess such power, but to carry out with greater solemnity and authority the three matters mentioned above.
That is to say:
Admonish
First, to admonish and exhort the pope regarding his correction, declaring to him how perniciously he brings scandal to and disturbs the universal Church by the example of his own life.
There can be no doubt that an exhortation thus made by the entire Church would be of great efficacy and power to move his mind towards the good.
A council appears to have employed this remedy when it was convened against Marcellinus, as is recorded in Distinction 21, c. Nunc autem. When he heard the fathers, assembled in God’s charity, inquiring whether the matter was indeed as rumour had conveyed—that he had offered incense to idols—he confessed his guilt with all humility, adding that he was prepared to obey whatever penance they might choose to impose on him.
Do penance
The second thing that the council ought to do, should the first measure prove insufficient, is with most devout prayers, fasts, and righteous works to besiege the ears of divine clemency, beseeching that he might deign to show mercy to his Church so as either to enlighten its pontiff or remove him from its midst.
This remedy would plainly be of great power. For if the Lord promises in Matthew 18 that, if two on earth agree concerning any matter at all that they ask, it shall be done for them by my father who is in heaven, how much more so when so many and such eminent fathers of the Church, gathered with one mind and a shared intention, combine their efforts—especially concerning a matter of the highest necessity for the universal Church.
Indeed, we must believe that, unless our sins stand in the way, God would not despise the prayers of his Church, nor suffer his spouse, for whom he endured the most bitter death, to be wholly destroyed by the malice of a single man or left in such perilous straits.
Seek the help of the secular arm (call in the army!)
The third thing that the council should do, if for reasons hidden to us the previous measures altogether fail, is to provide for a method and means of resisting the evils that the pope might attempt—even with recourse to the secular arm (for example, that of the Emperor or other princes)—lest the Church be endangered, as mentioned above.
6. Tolerate the evil
The sixth remedy, should the hidden judgment of God render all the foregoing measures unavailing, would be patiently to tolerate for a time what divine justice tolerates; for it is not likely that such a state of affairs would be long tolerated by God.
Indeed, the example of John XII—of whom we spoke above—teaches us this by experience. Hence Psalm 36 says: “But the enemies of the Lord, once honoured, were…” and so on.
We can assign the following reason for such patience. As Gregory says in his Morals,
“The actions of rulers are ordained according to the qualities of their subjects, so that even the life of a good pastor may at times be led astray on account of the wickedness of his flock, for the hearts of rulers are disposed according to the merits of the people.”
Hence the same Gregory, in c. Ex merito, 7, q. 1, says:
“At times bishops are corrupted by the merit of their people, and according to the merits or demerits of the peoples, the lives of prelates are ordered by the just Judge; whence, in the punishment of the peoples’ sins, it is sometimes permitted for the wicked to reign,.”
… as to Hosea 13: “I will give thee a king in my wrath.”
And in Job 34, it is said: “He causes a hypocritical man to reign because of the sins of the people.”
Likewise, Jerome says (and this is found in c. Audacter, 8, q. 1):
“Perhaps I speak boldly, yet it is written that the prince of the people and the Judge of the Church is not always given by the decision of God, but rather according to what our merits demand.”
Reasons why an immoral pope should be tolerated
Therefore, it should deservedly be tolerated.
First, because perhaps such an evil in the head of the Church might befall the Church by reason of the merits of its subjects.
Next, because, as Augustine says, it is no great burden to tolerate him whom the Lord tolerates, nor does it appear that any peril threatening the entire universal Church should be feared from such toleration, as adversaries sometimes allege.
Moreover, it is not likely that, on account of the shameful life or morals of a single supreme pontiff, the Church itself—protected by Christ’s promise that he will be a mighty defender of it even to the consummation of the age—would altogether perish. For, as the most holy Pope Leo writes to the most illustrious Augusta: “The divine protection does not forsake his Church,” with the Lord saying: “Behold, I am with you even to the consummation of the age.”
The same Pope, writing to the clergy and people of the city of Constantinople, states:
“Do not suppose, beloved, that divine protection is absent or will ever be absent from his holy Church.”
Likewise, we must not despair of the Saviour’s mercy in a similar circumstance: although he has sometimes permitted the little boat of his Church to be buffeted by many storms of persecution, never has he allowed it to suffer shipwreck, the Lord assuring us and saying in Matthew 16: “And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
Conclusion
Behold, then, the remedies to which one should more fittingly and prudently resort in a time of necessity or in the case mentioned above, rather than usurping the judgement of God and entangling oneself in countless difficulties, multiplying scandals upon scandals by attempting to depose the true and undoubted Roman pontiff. Such a course of action would not only offend the divine majesty (whose judgement would be usurped) but also be excessively difficult and conducive to schism, which could prove far more scandalous and harmful to the Church than the shameful life of a single pontiff.
Wherefore, the holy fathers, with the utmost zeal, have forbidden the flock to dare to censure its shepherd unless he has strayed from the faith. Thus Saint Anacletus says in an epistle addressed to all the bishops and priests of Christ:
“If the teacher or pastor of the Church should deviate from the faith, he is to be corrected by the faithful; but for depraved morals, he should be tolerated rather than constrained.”
Pope Fabian writes similarly to all the bishops, as does Pope Eusebius, as found in c. Oves, 2, q. 7. Blessed Gregory, gathering the opinion of all these fathers, says in his Morals, in the place cited above:
“It is certainly true that the merits of rulers and the people are so interlinked that often, through the pastor’s fault, the life of the flock is made worse, and often, through the merit of the flock, the life of pastors is changed. But since rulers have their own judge, subjects must take great care not to judge rashly the life of those who govern; nor was it without reason that the Lord himself, unaided, drove out the money-changers’ coins and overturned the seats of those who sold doves—indeed, signifying that through ministers he judges the life of the people, but by himself alone he examines the life of ministers.”
And further on, he says:
“Therefore, so long as the faith remains intact, it is an act of virtue if one tolerates what pertains to a superior; however, it should be humbly suggested whether what is displeasing might possibly be corrected.”
Thus speaks Gregory. And let these remarks suffice for the present.
Read next:
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription from you helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all. Plus, you will get access to our exclusive members-only material.
(We make our members-only material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!
Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:
Fr Damien Dutertre, The Errors Of The “Recognize And Resist” System, 2022. Now included as Chapter XI on TheThesis.us, accessible at https://web.archive.org/web/20231115094847/https://thethesis.us/chapter-xi/
If the post-V2 popes have legitimately held office and the Church being infallible in her liturgical rites, then the RR have no choice but to say,, "Lord, You are the author of the new mass with all it's potential means to scandalize and dishonour You." Which begs the question, why then if God be the author do you resist?
Very good article.
As has been pointed out above, the "resistance to the Pope who attempts to destroy the Church" to which St. Bellarmine refers to, is miss-applied by R&R apologist to the case of a Pope who would fall into heresy; and further, the writings of theologians such as St. Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas etc. etc. To the case of a Pope falling into heresy as a private person, is miss-applied to the case of a Pope teaching heresy or promulgating harmful discipline that leads the faithful into sin and loss of faith (such as the N.O.M.) acting in his official capacity, something that no theologian ever addressed or thought even possible.
On the value of the "Summa de ecclesia", Msgr. Fenton in the collection of his articles published under the title of: "The Church of Christ" pgs. 6 & 7 stated the following concerning Fr. Torquemada's "Summa de ecclesia". 'The treatise on the Church may be said to have achieved its classical form in Cardinal John of Torquemada's great fifteenth-century Summa de ecclesia......by all means the most perfect and the most influential pre-Reformation writing on the Church was Torquemada's Summa de ecclesia. This work is divided into four books. The first of these deals with the universal Church. The second treat of "the Roman Church and the primacy of its Pontiff....Torquemada wrote his masterpiece "against the adversaries of this Church of God and of the primacy of St. Peter". Like Peter the Lombard centuries before him, Torquemada declared his intention to manifest "eccclesiam Christi ex davidica turre clipeis pendentibus tutatam praemunitamque." (protected and fortified by the tower of David with its shields hanging over it.). Yet, for all of its polemical approach, the Summa de ecclesia was able to set forth the summation of all the previous scholastic teaching about the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. Had the tractatus de ecclesia entered into the fabric of scholastic theology in the status to which Torquemada had lifted it in the Summa de ecclesia, the history of the scholastic treatise on the Church would have been quite different from what it actually has been.