A Manifest Heretic Can Neither Become nor Remain a Pope

The saints and doctors of the Church teach that if a pope having sufficient knowledge and having made sufficient reflection denies an article of Faith and professes heresy, he falls to heresy and loses his papacy.

When it is taught that ‘a pope cannot profess heresy’ it simply means that this profession cannot be made and completed while he is pope, for upon attempting to profess heresy he loses his papacy and is reduced to a heretic, whereby the profession is made as a heretic and not as a pope.

Hence a pope as a private person can profess heresy but could never make this profession while occupying the papal office. Consider the words of St. Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1797), Doctor of the Church:

“If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.”

St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, makes this very point.

“A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”

St. Francis de Sales echoes this point as well:

“Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church…”

The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia states:

“The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”

St. Antoninus says that such a pope who is cut off from the Mystical Body cannot be the head of that Body.

“In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”

The lus Canonicum on the 1917 Code of Canon Law by Wernz-Vidal makes this same point:

“A pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.” It adds, “A doubtful pope is not pope.”

Not Theological Opinions

It’s important to point out that the foregoing statements by the Church Doctors and theologians are not theological opinions but they reflect the continuous teaching of the Church. If anyone would doubt this, let them consider the 1559 Papal Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio by Pope Paul IV. Papal Bulls do not contain opinions but are formal and authoritative proclamations containing weighty and indisputable truths for the instruction of the Catholic faithful.

The pope says in his document:

6. By this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define: that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the Roman Church… or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;

(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;

(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;

(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.

Toward the end of the document the Holy Father says:

10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, re-introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.

Given in Rome at Saint Peter's in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1559, 15th February, in the fourth year of our Pontificate. ¹

+ I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church of Rome

In keeping with the above Constitution, theologians and Church doctors make it clear that it is not only licit but dutiful to dismiss and resist the directives of a wayward pope. The eminent philosopher and theologian Francisco Suárez, named doctor eximius et pius by Paul V, had this to say:

“If the pope gave an order contrary to the good customs, one should not obey him; if his intent is to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it is lawful and valid to resist; if attacked by force, one shall be able to resist by force, with the moderation appropriate to a just defense.”

St. Robert Bellarmine says:

“Just as it licit to resist a pontiff that attacks the body, it is also licit to resist (him) who attacks the soul, or who disturbs the civil order, or, above all, he who intends to destroy the Church.”

So, we need to ask ourselves: does a pope’s "comprehensive rejection of Catholic teaching on marriage and sexual activity, on the moral law, and on grace and the forgiveness of sins" make him a heretic? Does denying the miracle of the loaves, Mary's role of Mediatrix of all Graces, that the Catholic Church is the sole deposit of Faith, that God does not will diversity of religions, that evolution is a myth, that homosexuality is a crime, that doctrine never changes, that Hell is a distinct place of eternal punishment, that unrepentant souls are condemned forever, and that Jews need conversion to Christ to be saved... do these denials make a pope a heretic?

If so, we have one among us. According to the Church doctors and popes he lost his papacy long ago, if in fact he ever possessed it. He embraced Marxism even as a seminarian and is universally applauded today by the Freemasons with whom he is affiliated. Marxism and Freemasonry are among the two most hateful causes that are committed to destroying the Catholic Church. According to Popes Paul IV and Pius XII, anyone who embraces or advocates these ideologies is automatically excommunicated from the Church, thus preventing their ascent to the Chair of Peter.

And while the 1983 code of canon law supposedly supersedes the previous code it in no way supersedes the truth and instruction penned by the popes in their Apostolic Constitutions and decrees. As Paul IV said, his 1559 Papal Bull “is to remain valid in perpetuity” so that anyone who attempts to infringe or contradict it “is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.”

What then shall we say of Pope Francis?

1. The pope’s Constitution calls to mind the July 13, 1949 decree of Pope Pius XII, which states that Catholics, including high Vatican prelates, who advocate communism or other like secret societies are automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church. This decree applies today.