The Fatima Center is on quite a roll of late, and it’s not a good one.
In the previous post, we took a look at comments made by Chris Ferrara during a Q&A session at the most recent Fatima Conference. Specifically, we examined his attempt to defend the notion that the faithful simply are not qualified to determine whether or not Jorge Bergoglio is an obstinate heretic and, thus, whether or not he is actually the pope. (This, despite the fact that Catholics are required to persist in communion with the pope.)
One of the questions that Chris was ostensibly addressing included the premise that Jorge Bergoglio is “an apostate non-Catholic.”
That’s a very serious charge, and yet we noted that Chris avoided (as those who ply the Resist-the-Pope trade typically do) the eminently fundamental question regarding Bergoglio’s status as a member of the Church.
We also made note of how Chris resorted to misrepresenting both Paul’s rebuke of Peter and the case of Pope Honorius in order to make these incidents appear as precedents for an unrepentant heretic in the Chair of St. Peter. We also saw how Chris even went so far as to calumniate Pope Honorius by imputing sentiments and attitudes to the man that he never expressed.
As mentioned in the article, however, Chris wasn’t exactly breaking new ground:
Peter’s rebuke of Paul, Pope Honorius and Monothelitism, Pope Liberius and Arianism, Pope John XXII and the beatific vision…
Misrepresenting each of these events in an attempt to paint Bergoglio as just another “bad pope” has long been in the resisters’ playbook, page one, in fact.
Last week, in a similarly unfortunate vein, the Fatima Center posted yet another misleading YouTube video, this one featuring traditional Dominican, Fr. Albert, wherein he presented “the teachings of John of St. Thomas.”
The video’s description promises would-be viewers that Fr. Albert will demonstrate how “John of St. Thomas summarized and reconciled the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, Francisco Suarez and others.”
NOTE: For the purposes of this article, we will focus our attention on Bellarmine.
In his own words, Fr. Albert states:
John of St. Thomas summarizes the position of Cajetan in three statements, and he defends them one by one, especially against Bellarmine and Suarez.
Let’s stop here for a moment to consider just what Fr. Albert is implying. It’s actually somewhat breathtaking.
He’s suggesting that when faced with conflicting arguments concerning the papacy as put forth by Doctor of the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine, on the one hand, and Cajetan (as defended by John of St. Thomas) on the other, one does well to put more stock in the opinions offered by the latter. This strikes me as a bold proposition indeed!
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting that Bellarmine’s position is above scrutiny. Nor am I denying that both John of St. Thomas and Cajetan were theological giants in their day. That said, neither one of these men is a canonized saint, much less a Doctor of the Church who is sometimes called, and for good reason, Doctor of the Papacy.
Maybe (wink) there’s a bit of Dominican vs. Jesuit rivalry at play. (Bellarmine was a Jesuit, while both John of St. Thomas and Cajetan were, like Fr. Albert, among the Order of Preachers.)
In any case, I’m all for arguments being made against Bellarmine’s position and letting those arguments either stand or fall on their merits, but as all men of good will must agree:
Misrepresenting what the Doctor of the Church actually taught is entirely unacceptable. Unfortunately, however, that is precisely what Fr. Albert does, even if unintentionally.
NOTE: Before proceeding, the reader would be well served to read, or re-read as the case may be, Bellarmine’s discussion of the various opinions surrounding the matter of a heretical pope, including the opinion held by Cajetan. You may do so HERE.
At this, it will be helpful for us to consider the following excerpt taken from the commentary of John of St. Thomas, the same upon which Fr. Albert relies:
Hence, Bellarmine and Suarez are of the opinion that, by the very fact that the Pope is a manifest heretic and declared to be incorrigible, he is deposed [ipso facto] by Christ our Lord without any intermediary, and not by any authority of the Church.
In this, it seems that John of St. Thomas either misunderstood Bellarmine’s actual position, or he paraphrased it so imprecisely as to invite misunderstanding on the part of his readers, Fr. Albert among them. On this note, two very important points bear mention:
Bellarmine most certainly does not suggest that the heretic pope must be “declared incorrigible” prior to losing his office, nor does he assert that the pope-turned-heretic is deposed “by Christ Our Lord.” Rather, his position is perfectly straightforward:
For in the first place, that a manifest heretic would be ipso facto deposed, is proven from authority and reason … A Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church. (cf. St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice)
Read that again slowly, paying close attention to the order of things.
According to Bellarmine, the manifest heretic, by virtue of his heresy, “ceases in himself” (i.e., of his own doing) to be pope. That is to say, he deposes himself, ipso facto, by the very fact of his heresy. Bellarmine even offers the analogy (more appropriately, the parallel) of a man who cuts himself off from the body of the Church by his heresy, a severance executed not by the Lord but by the man himself. It is only after this act of self-severance that the Church may move to judge and punish him (the former pope).
There is nothing especially complex or confusing about this at all, and yet, Fr. Albert, with reliance upon his understanding of John of St. Thomas, refers to Cajetan’s commentary as follows:
So, the simple fact of being a heretic does not make him [the obstinately heretical pope] deposed. Now, this is a key passage, because it shows that the position of Cajetan and John of St. Thomas is not really different from what Bellarmine and Suarez say with regard to the final point, of the necessity of an intervention of some authority in the deposition of the pope.
As Bellarmine’s own words make plain, his position most certainly is different than the one held by Cajetan, in fact, he specifically rejects it by name!
In no way does Bellarmine suggest that an intervention of authority is necessary in order for the man to cease being pope, in fact, he bluntly states otherwise! (“A Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope.”)
Even so, Fr. Albert goes on:
As John of St. Thomas just said, Bellarmine and Suarez accept that the pope, by the very fact that he is a manifest heretic, and [emphasis by Fr. Albert] declared incorrigible, is immediately deposed by the Lord. Therefore, their ipso facto doesn’t exclude some declaration by some authority, namely the bishops.
Once again, this is factually incorrect on several levels. As already stated, Bellarmine does not accept the premise that a “declaration by some authority” must precede the loss of office. Rather, he writes:
For in the first place, that a manifest heretic would be ipso facto deposed, is proven from authority and reason. The Authority is of St. Paul, who commands Titus, that after two censures, that is, after he appears manifestly pertinacious, a heretic is to be shunned: and he understands this before excommunication and sentence of a judge. (ibid.)
Once again, pay very close attention to the order of things. First, ipso facto deposition takes place, i.e., by the very fact of his being a manifest heretic, similar to the way in which that same man severs himself from the body of the Church. Bellarmine could not have spoken more clearly: “This before…” the Church exercises her authority.
Before moving on, it is critically important to be perfectly clear about the nature of the two censures to which Bellarmine refers. These censures cannot be taken to refer to the kinds of censures the Holy Office might hand down against a renegade theologian, e.g., an order to correct certain errors, a prohibition from publishing or teaching, etc. The reason this is so should be obvious to all, namely, there is no authority on earth above the Roman Pontiff such that it can so order him.
This being the case, the censures mentioned in St. Paul’s Letter to Titus, insofar as an errant pope is concerned, must be understood as fraternal corrections offered as an act of charity and, very specifically, not as an act of authority.
Eminent theologian Pietro Ballerini, commenting upon St. Paul’s Letter to Titus, says that “any subject can” issue a correction of this sort when “confronted with such a danger to the faith” as a pope teaching heresy. (Ballerini’s treatment is worth reading in full.)
As everyone with an interest in this topic knows very well, Bergoglio has been the beneficiary of not two, not six, but countless such corrections over the years, some even issued by bishops and cardinals, each of which were met with rigid obstinacy.
That made clear, one notes that Fr. Albert once again suggests that Bellarmine “accepts” that the heretic pope is “deposed by the Lord.” That simply is not true. Again, read his words for yourself.
Though Fr. Albert insists that Bellarmine’s “ipso facto doesn’t exclude some declaration by some authority, namely the bishops,” it most certainly does exclude any such declaration.
Fr. Albert goes on to state that Bellarmine “does say very clearly with regard to the second opinion which he treats, which says that the pope ceases to be Pope by the very fact of being a heretic. Well, he says ‘for me this is not proven.'”
Once again, Fr. Albert is misrepresenting Bellarmine’s position entirely (as well as the “second opinion”), perhaps due to over-reliance upon John of St. Thomas as opposed to allowing Bellarmine to speak for himself. “By the very fact” is precisely what “ipso facto” means, and this, Bellarmine says, is proven!
The “second opinion” to which Fr. Albert refers is the one held Turrecremata, who believed (as described by Bellarmine) that “the very instant in which he [a pope] falls into heresy, even if it is only interior, is outside the Church and deposed by God.”
This very specifically, with all of its components (e.g., interior heresy, immediate deposition by God) is what the Doctor of the Church considered “not proven.”
Fr. Albert is misleading his audience (again, presumably due to his reliance upon his own understanding of John of St. Thomas) to imagine that Bellarmine considered ipso facto loss of office “not proven.” As we’ve already seen, however, Bellarmine held the exact opposite view. He states without any ambiguity whatsoever: “That a manifest heretic would be ipso facto deposed, is proven from authority and reason.” [Emphasis added]
Note very well that the purpose of the present article is not to pit one opinion against another, rather, we are examining objective matters of fact that are not in dispute, namely, the positions expressed by Bellarmine in his treatise, De Romano Pontifice.
As the facts plainly demonstrate, Fr. Albert has repeatedly attributed to St. Robert Bellarmine positions that he simply did not hold.
I do not believe that Fr. Albert is being deliberately misleading. Everyone makes mistakes. Honorable men of integrity, when confronted with those mistakes, especially when they serve to lead others astray in matters of faith, swiftly issue a correction.
I believe that Fr. Albert is just such an honorable man. As such, I have every expectation that he, once made aware of his mistakes, will set the record straight with a much-needed correction.
NOTE: Since I am unable to contact Fr. Albert directly, I am sending this article to the Fatima Center’s leadership team so they can take the steps necessary to alert him to the problem. I will publish any and all responses I may receive.
