The Indefectibility of the Apostolic See: Was the Idea of a Heretical Pope Formally Excluded at the First Vatican Council?

Abstract

During the prelude to the First Vatican Council, the idea of a heretical pope was used as the primary argument against the solemn definition of papal infallibility. The medieval canonists and conciliarists had allowed for the notion of papal heresy by making a strict distinction between the apostolic seat itself and the individual occupants of the throne of Peter. However, when we examine the text of Pastor Aeternus in light of the contents of the official Relatio, which was drawn up at the council to explain the meaning of this document, we find that the above distinction used by the conciliarists was formally proscribed with an anathema. This article will argue that in doing so, the Council Fathers definitively excluded the possibility of a heretical pope.

Introduction

In order to justify public dissent to the current Magisterium, certain opponents of Pope Francis have claimed that the theoretical possibility of a heretical pope has never been definitively settled by the church. ¹ If there is a real possibility of a Roman pontiff teaching heresy outside of the ex cathedra solemn definitions of the extraordinary magisterium, this hypothetical scenario is upheld as justification for withholding religious assent of the will and intellect to the teachings of the ordinary magisterium, as well as actively resisting the Roman pontiff by way of the public forum. ² It is undeniable that some theologians subsequent to the First Vatican Council continued to allow for the possibility of formal papal heresy, which has largely contributed to the present situation. ³ This article will challenge the claim that the possibility of a heretical pope has never been definitively settled by the Magisterium, by demonstrating how the Deputation De Fide intentionally composed the draft text of Pastor Aeternus in order to formally exclude this notion.

Since this theoretical possibility was the primary objection used by the Gallican party against the solemn definition of papal infallibility during the prelude to the First Vatican Council, there is evidence to suggest that the Deputation De Fide chose to not to make the rejection of the possibility of a heretical pope fully explicit in Pastor Aeternus, so as not to cause any potential obstacle to the solemn definition itself. The Deputation De Fide, which consisted of twenty-four members, acted as a steering committee at the council and was responsible for composing the draft text of Pastor Aeternus during the conciliar sessions. Upon a closer examination of the official Relatio of the fourth chapter of Pastor Aeternus in comparison with the document itself, we can establish exactly how the First Vatican Council carried out the Deputation De Fide’s stated intention of raising St. Robert Bellarmine’s “fourth proposition” ruling out the possibility of a heretical pope to the “dignity of a dogma” (ad dignitatem dogmatis evehere).

The First Vatican Council and the Demise of Gallicanism

After the First Vatican Council was convoked by Pope Pius IX on June 29, 1868, it ignited a fierce debate in the secular media, due to the complications that the solemn definition of papal infallibility posed toward diplomatic relations with contemporary world powers, as well as its implications for further rapprochement with the other Christian denominations. The council itself was targeting the unique challenges posed by the major political upheavals that had spread throughout Western Europe since the French Revolution in 1789. The secularizing forces in this antagonistic political landscape had gathered momentum during the Risorgimento, which had managed to unify Italy into a single state in 1861. With the gaze of the Italian nationalists turning toward Rome, the sovereign integrity of the Papal States was facing an existential threat. The Ultramontane movement sought to counteract these reactionary forces by reasserting the plenitudo potestatis of the Roman pontiffs. In a time of growing political uncertainty, amidst this tumultuous sociopolitical backdrop, the Catholic hierarchy believed that the best way to achieve this goal was through the solemn definition of the doctrine of papal infallibility. In doing so, the leaders in the hierarchy were convinced that they could help to curtail outside political influences by further centralizing church government at Rome.

Although the Gallican movement originated in France during the Middle Ages, this ideology eventually spread to other European territories and emerged as Febronianism in Germany and Josephinism in Austria during the eighteenth century. By insisting that the pope needed to secure the consent of the episcopate in making any major doctrinal and disciplinary decisions during church councils, the secular powers could leverage a greater amount of political control over Rome, by exerting their authority over the bishops. Due to the political chaos wrought by the French Revolution, however, the traditionally Gallican-leaning French clergy had strongly gravitated toward supporting the Ultramontane movement, which ultimately led to a greater push within the church for the solemn definition of papal infallibility. This volatile political climate further polarized both church factions, leading to the development of two diametrically opposed extremes. The excesses promoted by a radical minority within the Ultramontane movement, such as Louis Veuillot (1813–83) and William G. Ward (1812–82), degenerated into a type of hyper-papalism, which greatly exaggerated the infallible teaching authority of the pope. ⁴ This lent credence to the concerns raised by the Gallican faction within Catholicism and further exacerbated ecumenical tensions with the other Christian churches. ⁵

During the prelude to the First Vatican Council, some of the main figures of the anti-infallibilist movement, such as Ignaz von Döllinger (1799–1890) and Bishop Karl Josef von Hefele (1809–93), centered their objections to the solemn definition of papal infallibility on the condemnation of Pope Honorius I at the Third Council of Constantinople in 681. ⁶ In the years preceding the First Vatican Council, the theoretical possibility of a heretical pope was treated as an open question needing definitive resolution, and this question proved to be one of the most controversial subjects discussed on the eve of the council itself. A number of Gallican prelates, such as Bishop Jacques-Benigne Bossuet (1627–1704) and Cardinal César-Guillaume la Luzerne (1738–1821), used the accusation of heresy against Pope Honorius as the major counterargument against the doctrine of papal infallibility. ⁷ The Council Fathers ultimately dismissed the case of Honorius as irrelevant, however, ⁸ since contemporary theologians, such as Fr. Paul Bottalla, SJ (1823–96), had used Bellarmine’s arguments to successfully demonstrate that Honorius never actually subscribed to the heresy of monothelitism in his fateful letter to Sergius. ⁹

Bishop Gasser’s Relatio on the Question of Papal Heresy

Just before the ratification of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Pastor Aeternus, the Bishop of Brixen, Vinzenz Ferrer Gasser (1809–1879), delivered a Relatio in the final session of the council as the spokesperson of the Deputation De Fide. This Relatio, which contained the “long notes” summarizing the conciliar sessions, explained the finer details of the draft version of chapter 4 of Pastor Aeternus before the Council Fathers took their final votes to ratify its contents. Bishop Gasser’s Relatio explained the particular nuances of Pastor Aeternus, so that the bishops were fully informed about what they were actually voting on. Speaking on behalf of the Deputation De Fide, Gasser underscored the fact that a clause contained in St. Robert Bellarmine’s “fourth proposition” outlined in book 4, chapter VI of De Romano Pontifice was about to be raised to the “dignity of a dogma.” ¹⁰ This was a rather bold statement, since this was the exact portion of Bellarmine’s influential tome that specifically ruled out the possibility of a manifestly heretical pope. Given the fact that the main objection to the solemn definition of papal infallibility was centered upon the case of Pope Honorius, this rather striking claim would not have gone unnoticed when the voting process began.

The Fathers of the First Vatican Council were heavily influenced by the ecclesiology of St. Robert Bellarmine, who stands out as one of the most important Catholic theologians writing during the period of the Counter-Reformation. According to Archbishop Henry Manning (1808–92), Bellarmine had provided the most erudite defense of the doctrine of papal infallibility, and his writings were regularly consulted during the course of the council proceedings by the various bishops and periti. ¹¹ Christian Washburn notes that Bellarmine was the early modern theologian most frequently cited at the First Vatican Council and provides a detailed overview of the number of citations of his work in the relevant section of Mansi’s Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio. ¹² The suggestion that Bellarmine’s highly nuanced position on a heretical pope was about to be raised to dogmatic status is noteworthy in this respect, since this chapter of De Romano Pontifice explicitly rejects the possibility that a pope could ever publicly teach heresy or fall into manifest heresy as a particular person:

As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma. For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls pious and probable, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy. To say nothing of the other points, let me say that this is clear from the very words of Bellarmine, both in the citation made by the reverend speaker and also from Bellarmine himself who, in book 4, chapter VI, pronounces on the opinion of Pighius in the following words: “It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith.” From this, it appears that the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion. ¹³

The prospect of Bellarmine’s “fourth proposition” being raised to dogmatic status proved to be somewhat controversial on the council floor and needed to be further clarified in the Relatio for the benefit of the voting process. This was primarily due to the implications of Bellarmine’s understanding of the indefectibility of the Apostolic See for the ordinary exercise of the papal magisterium. If the Roman pontiff could never teach heresy when acting as a teacher of the universal church even in the non-definitive exercise of the ordinary magisterium, this would extend the scope of papal authority considerably beyond the infallible exercise of the extraordinary magisterium. In his 1863 apostolic letter Tuas Libenter, Pope Pius IX (r. 1846–78) had already emphasized the fact that church authority extended beyond the exercise of infallible definitions, in order to include the infallibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium. ¹⁴ The weight of this type of teaching authority would later be recognized as belonging to the second level of assent, which is owed to the secondary objects of the infallibility of the church. Pius IX then further solidified this action in his Syllabus of Errors in 1864, in response to the Gallican movement’s attempt to limit the scope of the teaching authority of the pope to infallible dogmatic definitions. ¹⁵

It is of little surprise, then, that the question of the authoritative weight of the teachings of the ordinary magisterium would be considered during the conciliar sessions, since this was the major area in which Joseph Kleutgen, SJ (1811–83), had contributed toward modern ecclesiology. Kleutgen was one of the most influential theologians in attendance at the council itself. He was responsible for coining the terms “ordinary magisterium” and “extraordinary magisterium,” in response to the attempt to confine religious assent to divinely revealed dogmas. ¹⁶ While the question of the authority of the ordinary magisterium was never definitively settled at the First Vatican Council, Dei Filius references the obligation of Catholics to submit to the “ordinary and universal teaching office,” without further elaborating what this actually entails. ¹⁷

The Four Propositions in Support of Papal Infallibility

The suggestion that Bellarmine’s “fourth proposition” would be raised to dogmatic status is quite striking, since his major argument was that the Roman pontiff could never teach heresy to the church while acting in his public capacity as pope. As such, even though Bellarmine never used the later terminology associated with the different levels of magisterial authority that would be employed by theologians such as Kleutgen, we can retroactively discern that he believed that the ordinary papal magisterium was offered the divine assistance of the Holy Spirit even when exercising its non-infallible mode of teaching authority. This type of divine assistance clearly falls under the prerogatives of the indefectibility of the Petrine See, rather than the infallibility of the papal magisterium, since Bellarmine allows for the possibility that both the popes and councils can err in certain cases in the exercise of their non-infallible public teaching office, such as in matters of particular fact—as the following quote makes clear:

With these things being noted, all Catholics and the heretics agree on two things. Firstly, that the Pontiff, even as Pontiff, can err in particular controversies of fact, even together with a general Council, because these depend especially on the testimonies of men. Secondly, the Pope can err as a private teacher from ignorance, even in universal questions of law concerning both faith and morals, just as what happens to other teachers. ¹⁸

This is why the term “indefectibility” is more applicable for Bellarmine’s position on the public teaching office of the pope, since he allows for the existence of certain deficiencies in this capacity while rejecting the possibility that a pope could publicly defect from the faith in the non-definitive exercise of the papal magisterium. Derived from the Latin indefectibilis (unfailing), this word indicates the inability of the church to fail or defect from the faith, which is used in a more passive and loose sense. This allows some scope for the reversal of certain contingent magisterial teachings that have not been set forth as irrevocable, while simultaneously maintaining that this non-definitive exercise of the Magisterium is still protected against doctrinal corruption through the divine assistance of the Holy Spirit. ¹⁹ This is to be distinguished from the use of the Latin word infallibilis—used to describe the inerrancy of the church in a more active and strict sense—that is usually confined to the definition of irreformable dogmas.

Even though he had no knowledge of the modern terminology invented by Kleutgen, Bellarmine makes a distinction between the exercise of the extraordinary magisterium—which he uses to refer to when the pope is making a defining act—and the ordinary non-infallible teachings of the Roman pontiff when he is addressing the universal church in his public capacity as pope. St. Robert Bellarmine was proclaimed a Doctor of the Church by Pope Pius XI in 1930 in recognition of his contribution to Catholic theology, and his detailed articulation of the doctrine of papal infallibility is arguably his most significant work. Even during his own lifetime, Bellarmine’s erudition was recognized as unparalleled among his contemporary Catholic theologians, which saw him quickly advance through the ranks of the Roman curia before being elevated to the cardinalate in 1599, at the age of fifty-seven. While Bellarmine is largely remembered today for his role in the trials of Giordano Bruno (1548–1600) and Galileo Galilei (1564–1642), his most significant theological contribution lay in the field of ecclesiology, especially in regard to the papal primacy and the authority of the papal magisterium. Bellarmine’s major three-volume work, Disputationes de controversiis Christianae fidei adversus huius temporis haereticos (hereafter De Controversiis), was chiefly composed in response to the critique of the papacy advanced by the Protestant reformers and was published separately in the years 1586, 1588, and 1593. Bellarmine’s concept of papal infallibility and his moderate view of the indirect power of the Roman pontiffs (potestas indirecta) presented major difficulties for political discourse during the period of the Counter-Reformation, and numerous tomes were written in an attempt to dismantle his “Romanist” ideology. Bellarmine’s treatment of the papacy is largely covered in the first volume of De Controversiis, over the course of five books that are collectively referred to as De Romano Pontifice (On the Roman Pontiff).

Even though Bellarmine believed that a manifestly heretical pope would lose the papal office ipso facto, he then went on to conclude that divine providence would simply never allow for such a possibility. ²⁰ The first opinion on the nature of church authority that Bellarmine summarizes is that of the Reformed theologians, such as Martin Luther (1483–1546) and John Calvin (1509–64), who argued that if the pope should “define something, even as Pope, and even with a general Council, it can be heretical in itself, and he can teach others heresy.” ²¹ The second opinion was that of the “Parisian theologians”—a term that Bellarmine uses to refer to the conciliarists Jean Gerson (1363–1469) and Jacques Almain (c. 1480–1515). Here, Bellarmine observes that Gerson and Almain followed the Decretists’ attempt to confine the gift of indefectibility to the universal church rather than the Apostolic See. This is important to note, since Bellarmine identifies the Decretists’ distinction between the sedes (the Apostolic See) and the sedens (the individual occupants of the Apostolic seat) as the primary basis of conciliar theory:

The first exposition is of the Parisian Theologians, that the Lord here prayed for the universal Church, or even for Peter who stood as a figure of the whole Church, and prayed that the faith of the Catholic Church would never fail. Such an exposition would be true, were it to be understood that he [Christ] prayed for the head of the Church and consequently for the whole body, which is represented by the head, but that is not how they understand it. They would have it that the prayer was only for the Church. This exposition is false. ²²

The third opinion covered by Bellarmine is the rather idiosyncratic view of Albert Pighius, who believed that “the Pope cannot in any way be a heretic nor publicly teach heresy.” ²³ While there is a certain amount of confusion as to how to differentiate Pighius’s position from Bellarmine’s view, the key distinction is that Pighius held that the pope could not be a heretic “in any way” (non posse ullo modo esse haereticu), while Bellarmine allowed for the possibility that the pope could teach heresy as a private doctor (doctor privatus) but not in his capacity qua Roman pontiff. We shall return to examine Pighius’s opinion in relation to the more nuanced position advanced by Bellarmine in more detail below. The fourth opinion, which Bellarmine asserts was commonly accepted by all Catholics, states that, “whether the Pope can be a heretic or not, he cannot define a heretical proposition that must be believed by the whole Church in any way.” ²⁴

To support the “fourth opinion” arguing in defense of papal infallibility, Bellarmine puts forward four separate propositions based on the indefectibility of the church, each of which covers differing facets of this doctrine. Bellarmine’s first proposition in support of papal infallibility is based on his conviction that the pope can never err when he teaches to the whole church in those matters concerning the Catholic faith. ²⁵ It is important to note that Bellarmine is not referring to the pope defining a doctrine to be believed by the whole church in this instance, since it would be illogical to suggest that the doctrine of papal infallibility could be marshalled in support of itself. Instead, Bellarmine is appealing to the inability of the pope to defect from the Catholic faith in the non-definitive exercise of his ordinary teaching office. To bolster this proposition, Bellarmine identifies two particular privileges that were won for the successors of Peter through the efficacy of Christ’s prayer in Luke 22:31–32:

One, that he could not ever lose the true faith insofar as he was tempted by the Devil, and that is something more than the gift of perseverance, for he said to persevere even to the end, which although he fell in the meantime, he still rose again in the end and was discovered faithful, since the Lord prayed for Peter that he could not ever fall because he held fast to the faith. The second privilege is that he, as the Pope, could never teach something against the faith, or that there would never be found one in his See who would teach against the true faith. ²⁶

Bellarmine’s second proposition in defense of papal infallibility appeals to the indefectibility of the universal church, which we can equate today with the sensus fidei fidelium: “Not only can the Roman Pontiff not err in faith, but even the particular Roman Church cannot err.” ²⁷ Bellarmine observes that there is a reciprocal relationship between the inability of the pope to teach heresy in his public capacity qua papa and the indefectibility of the entire people of God. ²⁸ In many respects, this aspect of Bellarmine’s ecclesiology presages the theology of the Second Vatican Council. Since the entire people of God are “indefectibly holy” (indefectibiliter sancta), divine providence would simply never allow for the universal church to be led into doctrinal error due to the heretical ministry of an errant pope. ²⁹

Bellarmine’s third proposition is a slight variation on the first, by focusing on the inability of the pope to bind the universal church to immorality: “Not only can the Supreme Pontiff not err in decrees of faith, but even in precepts of morals which are prescribed for the whole Church.” ³⁰ The fourth proposition goes on to outline the specific argument that the Relatio indicates would be “raised to the dignity of a dogma” after the final ratification of Pastor Aeternus. It should be noted that, while the first three of Bellarmine’s propositions serve the indefectibility of the church in general (since the universal church can never err in the sphere of faith and morals), the fourth proposition explicitly rules out the possibility of a manifestly heretical pope.

In addition to the first proposition, which argues that the Roman pontiff would never be able to teach heresy to the universal church in his public capacity as pope, Bellarmine makes a separate yet closely related claim that divine providence would prevent a pope from falling into formal heresy as a particular person. In book 2, chapter XXX of De Romano Pontifice, Bellarmine argues that a Roman pontiff who succumbs to manifest heresy would immediately forfeit the papacy, since this would necessarily involve the pope being automatically excommunicated (latae sententiae). Given the ramifications of such a prospect for church unity, Bellarmine ultimately concluded that divine providence would never allow for such an eventuality. This explicit rejection of the possibly of a manifestly heretical pope is particularly evident in the clause contained in Bellarmine’s fourth proposition, which was singled out by the Deputation De Fide in Bishop Gasser’s Relatio:

The fourth proposition. It is probable and may piously be believed that not only as “Pope” can the Supreme Pontiff not err, but he cannot be a heretic even as a particular person by pertinaciously believing something false against the faith. ³¹

Bellarmine’s View on a Heretical Pope in Comparison with That of Albert Pighius

Bellarmine’s four propositions used to support the doctrine of papal infallibility are thus firmly rooted in the doctrine of the indefectibility of the church. Since the Fathers of the First Vatican Council were keenly aware of this fact, they pushed for the Deputation De Fide to clarify exactly how Bellarmine’s views on the question of papal heresy differed from the “extreme view” of Albert Pighius. In the “third opinion” concerning the infallibility of the pope, Bellarmine notes that Albert Pighius maintained that a pope could never teach heresy even in his capacity as a private theologian. During the conciliar sessions at the First Vatican Council, Pighius’s “third opinion” was rejected as an extreme form of Ultramontanism that had distorted the key objective of the council itself. Once we take the historical precedent set by Pope John XXII (r. 1316–34) into account, Pighius’s thesis is rather incredulous. While Bellarmine largely agreed with Pighius’s position outlined in the “third opinion” as “pious and probable,” he differed from this view by allowing for the possibility that a pope could teach heresy in his capacity as a private theologian. ³²

Bellarmine is aware of the particular complications posed by the case of Pope John XXII and adjusts his argument accordingly to allow for the idea that a pope could teach heresy in a private capacity. Over the course of several sermons delivered during his pontificate, John XXII had argued that the souls of the blessed would not witness the beatific vision immediately after death, but would have to wait until the general resurrection of the dead at the end of time. Bellarmine’s response to this problem is twofold. He first argues that Pope John XXII’s erroneous views on the resurrection of the soul after death could never have amounted to heresy, since this matter had not yet been formally defined. As such, John XXII could not have pertinaciously held to this belief. The fact that he recanted of his position on his deathbed only helped to prove the material nature of his erroneous views. His second argument is that John XXII never sought to extend his views to the universal church in his capacity as a public teacher and merely wanted to offer his thoughts on this subject for discussion among theologians, so that the church could subsequently arrive at a definitive conclusion on this matter. ³³

According to Bellarmine’s internal logic, Pope John XXII’s views on the particular judgement were at most material heresy, rather than formal or manifest heresy, and he only ever taught this position in a private capacity. While the challenge presented by this case negates Pighius’s “third opinion,” it leaves Bellarmine’s fourth proposition intact—since this proposition allows for a pope holding materially heretical views, as well as a pope who teaches heresy in his capacity as a private theologian. Bellarmine helps to distinguish his own position by summarizing Pighius’s opinion as follows: “The third opinion is on another extreme, that the Pope cannot in any way be a heretic nor publicly teach heresy, even if he alone should define some matter, as Albert Pighius says.” ³⁴

So Pighius’s extreme view as defined in the third opinion is that a pope cannot be a heretic “in any way” (non posse ullo modo esse haereticu)—which means that he is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching heresy not only in his exercise of the public magisterium but also in his work as a private theologian. ³⁵ Bellarmine then goes on to propose a fourth, more measured position, which allows for the possibility of a pope falling into material heresy and teaching heresy as a private teacher while rejecting the idea that he could bind the entire church to a heretical proposition through a defining act. ³⁶

Therefore, Bellarmine and Pighius both reject the possibility that the pope could teach heresy in his public capacity as pope but diverge in their estimations of whether or not a pope can teach heresy as a private theologian. Bellarmine goes on to expand on the second proof ab eventu offered in the fourth proposition by undertaking an extensive historical survey that examines several instances in which certain popes were accused of heresy, with a focus on the particular challenges presented by the cases of Pope Honorius and Pope John XXII. In addition to defending various popes against the charge of manifest heresy, Bellarmine repeatedly appeals to an ancient tradition in the early church that maintained that the Apostolic See was immune against any sort of doctrinal corruption. By examining these writings in their original context, Bellarmine attempts to establish that the doctrine of the indefectibility of the Apostolic See was based on the historical claim that no bishop of Rome had ever succumbed to heresy while acting in a public capacity as pope. While some of the prelates presiding over the other patriarchal sees had sometimes succumbed to heresy, Bellarmine argues that the See of Rome had always remained impervious to corruption from doctrinal error. This is one of the major arguments advanced by Bellarmine in favor of his particular take on the doctrine of the indefectibility of the Apostolic See, which he uses as his major defense for the doctrine of papal infallibility. ³⁷

The Distinction between the Apostolic See and the Holders of the Apostolic Office

By modifying Pighius’s view to acknowledge that a pope could privately teach heresy while insisting that this type of doctrinal corruption could never leach over into his public magisterium, Bellarmine looked to church history to substantiate this claim. Bellarmine understood that, if it could be proven that a Roman pontiff had ever taught heresy in his public capacity as pope, this historical precedent would validate the logical basis of conciliar theory. As a result, the infallible teaching authority of the church would be restricted to the definitions of ecumenical councils. Conciliar theory was rooted in a distinction made by the medieval Decretists, which sought to separate the Apostolic See itself (the sedes) from the holders of the apostolic seat (the sedens). It was presumed that this theoretical abstraction within canon law could allow for the possibility that individual popes could occasionally lapse into heresy while simultaneously upholding the already long-established doctrine that the faith of the Apostolic See could never fail.

During the Middle Ages, the study of canon law was divided into two separate schools that each relied upon differing sources of authority—the Decretalists and the Decretists. The Decretalists gave particular focus to the pontifical decretals in their canonical collections, which were composed after Gratian’s Decretum had already been established as the major source of authority for canon lawyers. The Decretists, who continued to use Gratian’s work as their standard reference material, went on to establish the basis of conciliar theory, by implying that the pope acting alone could potentially teach heresy, if he did not obtain the consent of the church within the context of an ecumenical council. This typically involved equating the Apostolic See with either the Roman Church in general or the pope acting in unison with the bishops or with the college of cardinals, rather than understanding it as the episcopal See of Rome presided over by the individual successors of Peter.

In maintaining the indefectibility of the universal church, rather than the succession of popes charged with exercising authority over it, the Decretists allowed for the possibility that individual Roman pontiffs could fall into manifest heresy and teach doctrinal error in their public capacity as pope. It is here that we find the origins of conciliar theory—if the pope acting alone could lead the entire church into heresy, then the most important doctrinal controversies could only be resolved by the judgement of an ecumenical council. This concept would find its most well-known iteration in the fourth article of the Declaration of the Clergy of France in 1682, which contains the central tenet of Gallicanism:

Although the pope has the chief part in questions of faith, and his decrees apply to all the Churches, and to each Church in particular, yet his judgment is not irreformable, at least pending the consent of the Church. ³⁸

The canon Si papa, found in Gratian’s Concordantia Discordantium Canonum (more generally known as the Decretum Gratiani), used the case of Pope Anastasius II to justify speculation on the possibility of a future pope falling into heresy and leading countless souls astray. ³⁹ Even though the Decretists fully accepted the doctrine of indefectibility, they offered an alternative interpretation that strictly limited this gift to the prerogatives of the universal church. In his Summa on the Decretum Gratiani, the canon lawyer Huguccio (d. 1210) asserted that the pope acting together with the cardinals was a more certain source of authority than the pope acting alone. But even then, it was only the entire Ecclesia universalis that was truly preserved against all error. ⁴⁰ By drawing a distinction between the sedes and the sedens, the Decretists proposed that the gift of indefectibility was conferred upon Peter in personae Ecclesiae, and as such, they held that Christ’s prayer in Luke 22:32 was made solely for the benefit of the universal church. In this way, it was understood that the universal church’s steadfast fidelity to Christ did not necessarily imply that the individual successors of Peter could never publicly teach heresy. For example, Huguccio maintained that Christ’s prayer for Peter’s faith only ensured that the faith of the universal church would never fail:

[The Apostolic Church] has never erred: There is an objection concerning Anastasius. But perhaps this [pope] came earlier. Or perhaps, and this is better, he speaks of the faith of the universal Church which has never erred. For although the Roman pope has sometimes erred this does not mean that the Roman church has, which is understood to be not he alone but all the faithful, for the church is the aggregate of the faithful; if it does not exist at Rome it exists in the regions of Gaul or wherever the faithful are. The church can indeed cease to be but this will never happen for it was said to Peter, and in the person of Peter to the universal church, “that your faith shall not fail.” ⁴¹

If the gift of indefectibility only properly belongs to the universal church, this would have wider ramifications for the doctrine of papal infallibility. If the individual successors of Peter were deprived of the divine assistance of the Holy Spirit when acting on their own initiative, then they could only possibly claim to issue infallible judgements when they are afforded the consent of the legitimate representatives of the universal church—which only occurs upon the gathering of the college of bishops during an ecumenical council. However, if the gift of indefectibility extends to protect each of the successors of Peter in the See of Rome, then it follows that each and every pope is endowed with the capacity to issue infallible judgements acting alone, even when they do not have recourse to the affirmation of the college of bishops.

The Rejection of the Sedes/Sedens Distinction in Pastor Aeternus

The Fathers of the First Vatican Council were thus deeply conscious of the fact that the principal argument against the definition of papal infallibility rested on the possibility that a pope could publicly teach error by way of his ordinary magisterium. It was understood that this issue would need to be resolved within the main text of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, to establish the logical foundation of the doctrine of papal infallibility over and against the central claim of conciliar theory. As such, we can establish a very clear motive for the statement in the Relatio that the contents of Pastor Aeternus would raise Bellarmine’s fourth proposition to dogmatic status. The core argument of this article is that the Deputation De Fide explicitly stated that it intended to formally reject the distinction between the sedes and sedens in the Relatio, and then proceeded to complete this objective by specifically formulating the draft text of Pastor Aeternus to proscribe this proposition with an anathema. As the Relatio stipulates below, Pastor Aeternus had been purposely designed to formally exclude this distinction:

In what sense can the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff be said to be personal? It is said to be personal in order to exclude in this way a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the Roman Church. Indeed, infallibility is said to be personal in order thereby to exclude a distinction between the See and the one who holds the See. Since this distinction did not acquire any patrons in the general congregations, I shall refrain from saying anything about it. Therefore, having rejected the distinction between the Roman Church and the Roman Pontiff, between the See and the possessor of the See, that is, between the universal series and the individual Roman Pontiffs succeeding each other in this series, we defend the personal infallibility of the Roman Pontiff inasmuch as this prerogative belongs, by the promise of Christ, to each and every legitimate successor of Peter in his chair. ⁴²

On a cursory study of the relevant documents, it is easy to overlook the significance of this stated objective since the language used is technically precise, yet almost impenetrable to grasp by the average reader. This makes it difficult to correlate this aim with the corresponding material in the document itself, since the precise wording used in the Relatio is somewhat different from the manner in which it is executed in the text of Pastor Aeternus itself. The wording used in the draft of Pastor Aeternus to exclude the possibility of a heretical pope was deliberately vague, to ensure the council proceedings ran smoothly, without disrupting progress on the solemn definition itself. If the Deputation De Fide made it explicitly clear that papal infallibility was directly predicated on the indefectibility of the individual successors of Peter, and that the possibility of a heretical pope was going to be definitively excluded by Pastor Aeternus, there was a real chance that the Gallican party would redouble their efforts by focusing on the case of Pope Honorius during the conciliar sessions. Since this would have risked indefinitely forestalling the solemn definition of papal infallibility, this particular aspect of Pastor Aeternus was subtly downplayed, while the inevitable logical consequence of definitively excluding the possibility of a heretical pope remained intact. In his Pastoral Letter to the Clergy, which was composed shortly after the council was interrupted in 1870, Archbishop Manning explained that he purposefully avoided any direct reference to the case of Pope Honorius:

I have intentionally refrained from treating the historical evidence in the case of Honorius in the text of the fourth chapter, for the following reasons: 1. Because it is sufficient to the argument of that chapter to affirm that the case of Honorius is doubtful. . . 2. Because the argument of the fourth chapter necessarily excludes all discussion of detailed facts. Had they been introduced into the text, our antagonists would have evaded the point, and confused the argument by a discussion of details. ⁴³

The Deputation De Fide knew that they could quietly jettison the idea of papal heresy within the main text of Pastor Aeternus by formally condemning the distinction between the Apostolic See and the succession of individual Roman pontiffs by way of anathema—since this was the primary theological loophole that the Decretists had exploited to allow for their speculations on the possibility of a papa haereticus. In doing so, the Deputation De Fide could definitively settle the issue of papal heresy in the final draft of Pastor Aeternus, whilst also evading a potential stumbling block for the solemn definition. The Deputation De Fide understood that it was necessary to condemn this distinction, since they knew that the central tenets of papal infallibility were directly predicated on the much earlier doctrine that claimed that the Catholic faith had always been preserved intact in the See of Peter. ⁴⁴ The Relatio informs us that one of the Council Fathers wanted this fact to be made fully explicit within the text of Pastor Aeternus itself. While Bishop Gasser fully acknowledged the truth of this assertion, he motioned to overrule this suggestion, as he felt that this was already made sufficiently clear within the draft text of Pastor Aeternus. ⁴⁵

Ignaz von Döllinger was aware that the doctrine of papal infallibility was directly predicated on this earlier doctrine of indefectibility, which maintained that the Apostolic See always remained uncorrupted by any taint of heresy. Döllinger determined that if he could prove that a pope had ever actually taught heresy in his public capacity as Roman pontiff, this would completely undermine the logical foundations of the doctrine of papal infallibility. During the prelude to the council, Döllinger went to considerable lengths to demonstrate that the doctrine of papal infallibility was a relatively late theological construct, which first arose only during the thirteenth century in the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–74). ⁴⁶ Writing under the pseudonym “Janus,” Döllinger argued that the case of Pope Honorius proved the Decretists’ assertion that the gift of indefectibly was only bestowed upon the Apostolic See in a more general sense, as a corporate entity that represented the universal church.

As Manning’s writings demonstrate, the Deputation De Fide was fully aware of Döllinger’s counterarguments. As such, the Council Fathers knew that they would have to address his primary line of contention, which focused on the case of Honorius. On a closer reading of Pastor Aeternus, we can determine that the Deputation De Fide chose to answer Döllinger’s critique by definitively discarding the distinction between the sedes and the sedens. While the main impetus of the First Vatican Council revolved around the solemn definition of papal infallibility, there were a number of other dogmas proclaimed during the course of the conciliar proceedings, which differ in the exact manner of their definition. These other dogmas can be identified by the content of the attached canons and corresponding anathemas, which are contained in both Dei Filius and Pastor Aeternus. An anathema is typically directed against anyone who pertinaciously denies a dogma of the Catholic faith and is therefore used to indicate the guilt of heresy, which incurs an automatic latae sententiae excommunication. Since canon law defines heresy as “the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith,” ⁴⁷ the exact opposite position of any given heretical proposition is a dogma that must be believed with the theological assent of divine and Catholic faith. The use of anathemas in the canons of ecumenical councils is therefore regarded as a crucial means of identifying de fide credenda dogmas outside the context of solemn definitions. ⁴⁸

In the prologue of Pastor Aeternus, the Council Fathers announced that they intended to define the doctrines of the establishment, perpetuity, and nature of the Petrine primacy. These three doctrines are treated separately in each of the three chapters that precede the solemn definition of papal infallibility. Since these chapters concerning the institution, permanence, and nature of the primacy of the bishop of Rome are accompanied by separate canons and anathemas, they can be identified as three distinct yet intimately related dogmas. ⁴⁹ The opening chapter of Pastor Aeternus focuses on the establishment of the church by Christ on the Apostle Peter alone, which is thus treated as a separate dogma in its own right. ⁵⁰ Since the first chapter of Pastor Aeternus repeatedly emphasizes the fact that Christ bestowed the Roman primacy on Simon Peter alone (unum enim Simonem), and not on the college of apostles as a collective whole, or on the universal church in general, we can establish that this is the exact portion of the document wherein the Decretists’ distinction between the Apostolic See and its individual occupants is formally proscribed:

We, therefore, teach and declare, according to the testimony of the Gospel, that the primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church was immediately and directly promised to and conferred upon the blessed apostle Peter by Christ the Lord. To Simon alone he had first said: “You shall be called Cephas” [Jn 1:42]; to him alone, after he had acknowledged Christ with the confession: “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God” . . . And after his Resurrection, Jesus conferred upon Simon Peter alone the jurisdiction of supreme shepherd and ruler over his whole flock with the words: “Feed my lambs. . . . Feed my sheep.” [Jn 21:15–17]

In manifest opposition to this very clear teaching of the Holy Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, are the perverse opinions of those who wrongly explain the form of government established by Christ in his Church; either by denying that Peter alone in preference to the other apostles, either singly or as a group, was endowed by Christ with the true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or by claiming that this primacy was not given immediately and directly to blessed Peter, but to the Church and through her to him as a minister of the Church herself. ⁵¹

The first chapter of Pastor Aeternus is accompanied with a corresponding canon containing an anathema condemning anyone who denies that the primacy over the church was conferred upon Peter alone. This means that anyone who pertinaciously holds to the converse position is guilty of formal heresy:

Therefore, if anyone says the blessed apostle Peter was not constituted by Christ the Lord as the prince of all the apostles and the visible head of the whole Church militant, or that he received immediately and directly from Jesus Christ our Lord only a primacy of honor and not a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction, let him be anathema. ⁵²

The anathematization of anyone who denies that the primacy was immediately bestowed upon Peter alone thus definitively eliminates the suggestion that the primacy was given collectively to the church as a whole, or to the college of apostles teaching in unison with the successor of Peter. Since this distinction was rejected by Bellarmine in his first proposition defending the case for papal infallibility, we can see how his position influenced the Council Fathers’ decision to repeatedly emphasize the fact that the Christ had instituted the church on Peter alone in the first chapter of the Dogmatic Constitution. ⁵³ Since the doctrine of the indefectibility of the Apostolic See contained in the Formula of Hormisdas was inserted into the text of the fourth chapter of Pastor Aeternus, and the first chapter had already categorically rejected the distinction between the sedes and the sedens, the exclusion of the prospect of a heretical pope became the sole possible interpretation of this profession of faith. The central crux of the Formula of Hormisdas—that the “See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error” (hanc sancti Petri Sedem ab omni semper errore illibatam permanere) ⁵⁴ —thus necessarily extends to include each of the successors of Peter in the See of Rome. If the Apostolic See is always preserved against doctrinal corruption, and it can never be dissociated from its individual occupants, it would be simply impossible to concurrently uphold the proposition that a pope could defect from the Catholic faith and teach heresy to the universal church via his public magisterium. Therefore, when Pastor Aeternus states that the faith of the Apostolic See can never suffer any defect (ubi fides non potest sentire defectum), this necessarily encompasses the faith of each of the individual successors of Peter when acting in their public capacity qua Roman pontiff. ⁵⁵

Pope Hormisdas’s claims concerning the charism of the apostolic seat were obviously originally intended to suggest the indefectibility of the individual occupants of the Chair of Peter. The condemnation of Pope Honorius during the Third Council of Constantinople had enabled the sedes/sedens distinction to take root, however, allowing for the theoretical possibility of a heretical pope to encroach into medieval canon law. If the Apostolic See was in some way distinguished from the series of popes who preside over it, the Decretists thought they could assent to the already defined doctrine that the See of Rome “always remains unblemished by any error,” while still allowing for the possibility that an individual pope could teach heresy. In this way, the Decretists interpreted Christ’s prayer for the never-failing faith of Peter in Luke 22:32 as being made for the universal church, or for Peter teaching in unison with the apostolic college, rather than for the individual successors of Peter. Upon the promulgation of the first canon of Pastor Aeternus, however, the central tenet of the Formula of Hormisdas concerning the preservation of the Apostolic See against doctrinal corruption finally became a total negation of the possibility of a papa haereticus. If Christ’s prayer for Peter’s faith extends to protect each of his successors in the See of Rome, then the idea of papal heresy is rendered utterly null and void.

The Modern Revival of the Sedes/Sedens Distinction

Despite the condemnation of the distinction between the sedes and the sedens in the first chapter of Pastor Aeternus, the modern opponents of Pope Francis similarly base their resistance to the teachings of the current Magisterium on a slight variation of this core idea. Since the accusations of heresy against Pope Francis are rooted in making the very same distinction that was anathematized in the first canon of Pastor Aeternus, we can be confident that the signatories of the Open Letter stand in direct contradiction to the teachings of the First Vatican Council. To cite but one example of the modern use of this distinction, Prof. Roberto de Mattei maintains that the gift of the preservation of the faith of the Roman See is only offered for the church in general, rather than being extended to the individual successors of Peter. In a book advocating a means of resistance to a heretical pope that was endorsed by Cardinal Burke, de Mattei similarly follows the Decretists’ template by making a conceptual separation between the indefectibility of the universal church and the individual holders of the Petrine office:

Indefectibility includes not only the infallibility of the Pope, but of the entire Church. The Pope is, under certain conditions, infallible, but not indefectible. The Church, which includes the Pope, bishops and ordinary lay-people, is infallible and indefectible. Theology differentiates between essential or absolute infallibility and shared or relative infallibility: the first is God “qui nec falli nec fallere potest”; the second is the charisma from God bestowed on His Church. ⁵⁶

This semi-Gallican approach favored by papal critics such as de Mattei attempts to confine the scope of the indefectibility of the Petrine See to the extremely rare instances of the ex cathedra definitions made by the extraordinary magisterium. In this respect, de Mattei and the authors of the Open Letter base their approach on the view of papal authority advanced by Tomasso de Vio Cajetan (1469–1534), ⁵⁷ which was further developed by Dom John Chapman (1865–1933) in the wake of the First Vatican Council. Chapman revised the Gallican objection to papal authority by making a strict distinction between the level of divine assistance given to the infallible and non-infallible modes of the exercise of the papal magisterium. In an attempt to reconcile the condemnation of Pope Honorius at the Third Council of Constantinople, Chapman suggested that it was possible for a pope to publicly teach heresy when he was not defining doctrines to be believed by the universal Church. ⁵⁸ In this way, Chapman believed that he could give unconditional assent to the dogma of papal infallibility while also admitting that Pope Honorius was guilty of espousing heresy in his public capacity as a teacher of the universal church. By making a slightly modified form of the sedes/sedens distinction, Chapman felt that he could deny the indefectibility of the individual successors of Peter while simultaneously upholding the traditional understanding that the faith of the See of Peter had always remained intact.

If the pope is only protected against heresy in making infallible definitions, then, contrary to the opinion of Bellarmine outlined in the clause of the fourth proposition cited in Gasser’s Relatio, it is possible for a Roman pontiff to publicly teach heresy in his official capacity as pope and also automatically lose the papacy by succumbing to manifest heresy. Since ex cathedra solemn definitions are incredibly rare occurrences, this minor emendation of the sedes/sedens distinction leaves the Gallican form of opposition to papal authority basically intact. As such, the adherents of this new form of semi-Gallicanism believe that they can ostensibly assent to the dogma of papal infallibility while denying that the doctrine of indefectibility acts to preserve the individual successors of Peter against doctrinal corruption outside of the infallible definitions of the extraordinary magisterium. The signatories of the Open Letter accusing Pope Francis of the canonical delict of heresy thus directly emulate the above semi-Gallican template provided by Chapman. The Open Letter itself contains a specific claim that the pope is capable of publicly teaching heresy outside of the extremely narrow conditions of ex cathedra definitions:

It is agreed that no pope can uphold heresy when teaching in a way that satisfies the conditions for an infallible magisterial statement. This restriction does not mean that a pope cannot be guilty of heresy, since popes can and do make many public statements that are not infallible; many popes indeed never issue an infallible definition. ⁵⁹

Instead of limiting the infallible exercise of the papal magisterium to the pope acting with the consent of the church via a conciliar decree (as was attempted by the Gallicans), this form of semi-Gallicanism strives to confine the extent of the indefectibility of the Apostolic See to the infallible solemn definitions of the extraordinary magisterium. This type of semi-Gallicanism artificially conflates the much earlier doctrine witnessing to the perpetual stability of the faith the Apostolic See with the dogma of papal infallibility. In doing so, it effectively renders the obligation for religious submission of the will and intellect to the ordinary magisterium obsolete, since it infers that religious assent is only properly due to a small number of infallible definitions of the extraordinary magisterium, outside of which the pope is capable of publicly teaching heresy. ⁶⁰

Conclusion

It should thus be of no great surprise that the Deputation De Fide understood that the idea of papal heresy was going to be definitively settled in Pastor Aeternus, since the case of Pope Honorius was the primary argument to which the Gallicans appealed to oppose the solemn definition of papal infallibility. Döllinger believed that if a pope could potentially teach heresy to the entire church, then there would be nothing to prevent him from defining a heretical proposition ex cathedra. By way of response, Pastor Aeternus taught that the Apostolic See was gifted with a never-failing faith—meaning that it is a divinely revealed dogma that Christ’s prayer for the unfailing faith of Peter in Luke 22:32 also extends to protect his successors in the Roman See.

By formally condemning the Decretists’ distinction between the sedes and the sedens, the Relatio indicates that the Deputation De Fide was fully cognizant that St. Robert Bellarmine’s “fourth proposition” would be raised to dogmatic status upon the ratification of the first canon of Pastor Aeternus. If the Apostolic See can never be separated from the individual successors of Peter, then in asserting the perpetual doctrinal stability of the See of Rome, the First Vatican Council definitively excluded the idea that a Roman pontiff could teach a heretical proposition via the ordinary exercise of the papal magisterium. In doing so, the Council Fathers paved the way for the third level of assent, which is owed toward the ordinary magisterium. ⁶¹ By rejecting the idea that a pope could bind the universal church to a heretical teaching through the exercise of his public ministry, St. Robert Bellarmine provided the logical foundations for the Second Vatican Council’s articulation of the differing levels of church authority, and the requirement for obsequium religiosum that is owed toward the teachings of the authentic magisterium. By accusing Pope Francis of heresy, the signatories of the Open Letter thus undermine one of the central pillars of church authority and ultimately reject an ecclesiology that has already been infallibly proposed by the First and Second Vatican Councils.