Thoughtless Anti-Sedevacantism

Thoughtless Anti-Sedevacantism
A response to Stephen Hand

Mr. Stephen Hand has set himself up as an "authority" against "sedevacantism." At one stage he wrote regularly on the matter, and more recently he has assembled a series of texts which form a section on his Web site entitled "SEDEVACANTISM REFUTED". This paper is an attempt to come to terms with the points asserted by Mr. Hand in some sort of order, and comment upon those points as necessary. His text is appended at the end for the convenience of readers.

Mr. Hand's Mess

To summarise Mr. Hand's presentation:

A Catholic cannot know a heretic until Holy Church has judged infallibly. "Private judgement" can never be more than a "private hunch."
Pope Benedict XV and the Code of Canon Law legislate this.
A heretic-"pope" remains pope until judged infallibly by Holy Church.
Catholics can be taught by somebody they think teaches heresy, by sifting the "good" from the "bad".
Catholics cannot really know what is heresy and what is not, until Holy Church judges infallibly.
Catholics can know heresy before Holy Church judges infallibly.
Catholics should not cut off communion with heretics who claim offices in Holy Church, but should wait for the much-mentioned infallible judgement, if it ever comes.
The fruit of V2 is "threatening every day to make the Church more and more unrecognizable in contrast to her preconciliar reality which lasted nearly 2,000 years." The "Church must be warned and recalled from the new orientations which cannot work precisely because they oppose tradition in many respects…" The Church must be "called away from novelties and back to Tradition."
Bellarmine taught that a public judgement was necessary before Catholics could know a heretic.
Bellarmine taught that even "internal heresy" resulted in the loss of ecclesiastical offices.
Bellarmine taught that one must resist a heretic "pope", but not reject him.
All the thoughts of the Doctors on the question of "heretic-popes" are "hypothetical."
Bellarmine's doctrine is merely his "opinion." Bellarmine was "daydreaming." Bellarmine is not to be taken as seriously meaning what he wrote. He was "deviously" proposing a reductio ad absurdum so as to prove that popes could not fall into heresy.
Bellarmine "invented the theory of automatic deposition."
"Bellarmine is to some degree responsible for misleading [some] Catholics."
The judgements of individuals without jurisdiction are not binding on others.
Cum Ex Apostolatus never had the force of law, and was never incorporated in the Code.
Karol Wojtyla hasn't taught heresy.
"Manifest" as used by Bellarmine means "notorious" according to Wernz and Vidal.
St. Francis de Sales taught that "private judgement about a matter so grave is absolutely ruled out." St. Alphonsus taught the same thing.
There is a presumption of validity when a man claims the papacy and most Catholics accept him.
"…it is another true and incontrovertible perpetual teaching of the Church that men who are overwhelmingly and publicly recognised as Popes are legitimate Popes."
To tell others that Karol Wojtyla is not pope is a grave sin and a scandal.
Not to pray for the heretic at mass is to endanger one's communion with the Church.
Popes can become heretics.

Untangling the mess

1. A Catholic cannot know a heretic until Holy Church has judged infallibly. "Private judgement" can never be more than a "private hunch."

There are two things wrong with these assertions. Firstly, Holy Church does not infallibly judge heretics. She judges via her tribunals, usually, and these are fallible. They arrive at certainty using the same means used by any man who diligently inquires after truth. In fact, Pope Pius XII specifically addressed the officials of the Roman Rota on the principles to be applied, so as to ensure they understood them and diligently applied them. Explaining that judges must reach moral certitude, he taught: "There is an absolute certainty, in which all possible doubt as to the truth is of the fact and the unreality of the contrary is entirely excluded. Such absolute certainty, however, is not necessary in order to pronounce the judgement. In many cases it is humanly unattainable; to require it would be to demand of the judge and of the other parties something which is unreasonable; it would put an intolerable burden on the administration of justice and would very seriously obstruct it."

Then the Holy Father proceeded to describe quasi-certainty, which does not form a sound basis for judgements. Then, he expounded moral certainty, teaching that it "…is characterised on the positive side by the exclusion of well-founded or reasonable doubt, and in this respect it is essentially distinguished from the quasi-certainty which has been mentioned; on the negative side, it does admit the absolute possibility of the contrary, and in this it differs from absolute certainty. The certainty of which We are now speaking is necessary and sufficient for the rendering of a judgement, even though in the particular case it would be possible either directly or indirectly to reach absolute certitude." (Canon Law Digest, vol. 3, pp. 606, 607.)

The second error in the propositions stated above is that Catholics cannot know a heretic until he has been judged publicly, whether an infallible or fallible judgement is meant. In fact, this is the singular view of the Abbe De Nantes. Isn't that enough to refute it? In Catholic minds it is.

Expanding a little on this question, it is clear from both reason and authority that moral certainty about whether somebody is a heretic or not is possible in the absence of a public judgement. Reason tells us that in given circumstances a "private" judgement might easily be more certain than a public one. For example, where a man knew the facts intimately, he could know with certainty something which a judge might be able to discover only after a lengthy court process, or even not at all. The fact that a judge is generally in a better position to pass sound judgements than an individual might be, does not prove anything except the necessity for experienced, learned judges invested with strong powers for obtaining evidence, and surrounded by able assistants. It certainly does not prove that only public judgements can be certain. And if it did prove the latter, it would contradict all of the authorities.

All have believed and taught that we can know heretics, with certainty, without any declaration. Canon 188,4, (which states that offices are lost automatically and without any declaration), is meaningless without such an understanding. The constant tradition of Holy Church, as presented by Bellarmine, is the opposite of the Abbe's novelty. Bellarmine writes: "the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are 'ipso facto' deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity." (De Romano Pontifice, bk II, ch. 30). What is the meaning of this if not that heretics can be known as such? Does the Abbe think that Holy Church was accustomed to excommunicate office-holders and then forget to depose them? Or could it just be that the Abbe doesn't know what he's talking about?

Pope Pius XII taught: "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed." (Mystici Corporis Christi). The Abbe apparently believes that what the Holy Father actually meant to say was that "only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptised and profess any faith they like, and who have not been so unfortunate as to be excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed." Separating oneself from Holy Church is actually impossible, according to the Abbe. Or at least, if it happened nobody could know.

2. Pope Benedict XV and the Code of Canon Law legislate this.

This assertion of the Abbe that Benedict XV somehow legislated that non-Christians are Catholics until "authority" says otherwise is a scandalous injury to the good name of that pope; a demonstration that the Abbe fails to comprehend the difference between divine and ecclesiastical law (as though the latter could oppose the former); and grossly irresponsible. But at bottom, it is an unsupported allegation, and as such falls with a simple denial. But so as to cut off any further quibbling and rash accusations of placing a "spin" on the meaning of Canon Law, let us hear Bellarmine answer a parallel charge. He writes: "There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms." (Ibid.)

Even the teaching of a Doctor of the Church is not sufficient for some - they will insist on their own interpretation of Canon Law all the same. But their interpretation of ecclesiastical law is as flawed as their "comprehension" of divine law. Da Silveira points out: "Such a teaching, it might be objected, is found in the textbooks, but it has not been retained by the Code of Canon Law which establishes in canon 2233 n.2 the precise manner in which the accused must be rebuked and warned before any censure may be imposed.

"This objection does not stand up, because this canon applies only to 'ferendae sententiae' censures, ie. those which are inflicted by the superior or by the ecclesiastical judge. When the censure is 'latae sententiae', that is to say when the accused incurs it automatically by the fact of having committed a certain crime, the warning is not necessary. In this case, as a fine old legal maxim has it, 'Lex interpellat pro homine', the law calls to account, instead of the man (cf. Palazzini, col. 1298).

"The excommunication which falls on the heretic is 'latae sententiae' (Canon 2314 n.l). It becomes clear, as a consequence of this, that the Code of Canon Law has also accepted the principle that a warning is not always necessary for pertinacity to be revealed." (Da Silveira, "Essay on Heresy".)

In other words, this interpretation is in perfect accord with the principle embodied in Canon 192, section 1, which states: "A person may be unwillingly deprived of, or removed from, an office, either by operation of law or by an act of the lawful superior." Penalties, as all canonists acknowledge, are applied either by a superior, or by the law itself. Therefore excommunications, which are penalties, can result from the actions of a superior, who must warn the accused before applying any penalty; or they can be applied by the law itself, automatically. Thus to teach that the law requires a warning in all cases is to misrepresent the Code.

Furthermore, to focus on excommunications is to miss the whole point of the traditional teaching on this matter, so beautifully brought together and expounded by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi. There are two ways to leave the Church - either by one's own act (heresy, schism or apostasy), or by being cut off from communion for grave crimes committed (excommunication).

3. A heretic-"pope" remains pope until judged infallibly by Holy Church.

Having established this novelty in the minds of his readers by the abuse of Pope Benedict XV's name, and without quoting him (which would expose the emptiness of the claim), Mr. Hand then quotes John of St. Thomas to the effect that this grand principle applies a fortiori to "popes". It should be noted that even John of St. Thomas, who errs in this matter, was not so much a fool as to believe it applied to other office-holders in Holy Church, such as diocesan bishops. That error has been reserved for our unhappy day.

It is true that a certain few have taught that in the extraordinary case of a pope falling into heresy (something the best authorities believe to be impossible), the loss of office would not occur, or would not be known, until after a declaration by a General Council or a Conclave. Who are these few? John of St. Thomas, Suarez, Cajetan, Bioux. Not a saint or a Doctor among them, and they constitute a tiny minority. The opposite view is the common one, and in fact according to Bellarmine it is the constant tradition of Holy Church. He writes: "Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction…" (Ibid.)

The claim by our opponents that they accept this, but interpret Bellarmine to mean that a declaration is actually necessary before we can know that anybody is a manifest heretic, is one of the most audacious sophisms one could ever hope not to confront. Bellarmine himself has made clear only a few paragraphs before that no declaration is necessary. He writes: "…it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is 'ipso facto' deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ." (Ibid.)

Recall, Mr. Hand is arguing as follows. Manifest heretics lose their offices automatically, and without any declaration. But heresy is not manifest until it is declared. Therefore offices cannot be known to have been lost until after a declaration.

This is flatly contradictory to the Code of Canon Law. It is in the face of the constant tradition of Holy Church. And it is senseless. The reason it is senseless is that it involves confusion over the definitions of authority and certainty, and it contains within itself a contradiction.

The contradiction is this: If heresy is never manifest until it is judged publicly, then no office could ever be lost automatically, and the first assertion falls. But if the first assertion falls, then the last assertion (that we cannot know about lost offices until a public judgement is delivered), cannot have any meaning. For what is there to know about? Or, if what is meant is that the only occasion upon which offices are lost automatically is immediately after a public judgement of heresy, then we justly inquire, why has anybody bothered to write about it? For Holy Church, when she judges a cleric guilty of heresy, deprives them of their offices anyway. It would seem, according to this incredible "reasoning", that theologians, canonists, popes, the Fathers, and many others have spilled a lot of ink over a distinction which has no practical ramifications at all.

The root of the failure to make sense is seen in the evident confusion Mr. Hand suffers regarding certainty and authority. Certainty, as we have seen, is that state of mind in which no reasonable doubt remains. Authority is the right to impose or enforce something. Now it is clear that certainty is not restricted to the minds of those who possess authority. Nor is it restricted to those things which authority has decided, or "judged". However, what authority can do, and does, is make clear to all what might not be clear otherwise. It provides certainty for those who cannot or might not achieve certainty otherwise.

In addition, authority can, and does, impose a judgement in the external forum. What this means is that exterior dissent is not permissible once a public judgement has been issued. It remains true that a fallible judgement cannot demand interior assent in a case where there are good reasons for doubting the rectitude of the judgement. Or, to put it another way, a fallible judgement can be wrong, by definition. Good Catholics do not question even those judgements which are issued by fallible tribunals, unless there be evident and powerful reasons. I emphasise the distinction only to throw light on the difference between authority and certainty.

Having clarified these principles, we can consider the rest of Mr. Hand's incredible dissertation.

4. Catholics can be taught by somebody they think teaches heresy, by sifting the "good" from the "bad".

Mr. Hand asserts correctly that Catholics know their faith, and must defend it even when somebody with apparent authority attacks it. However he seems unclear on why this is so. He is also unclear on the fact that a Catholic can know heresy, in itself. Mr. Hand refers in his ramblings to the "novelties", "errors", and even "heresies" of the V2 "popes". But he refuses to state clearly that he is certain that these things really are novelties, errors, and heresies. He writes (quoting Michael Davies favourably): "…there is no simple question here of the Pope denying any de fide dogma of the Faith, even if we must insist the Conciliar Popes have dealt recklessly with, and thus compromised or endangered, some dogmas. In certain cases where ambiguity and ecumenical compromises are concerned there do appear to be materially very grave errors." "Which is it - heresies or ambiguities?" we are entitled to ask.

It seems that Mr. Hand is once again finding himself caught between certainty and authority. He sees that unless a Catholic can resist those who try to destroy his faith, then we might as well all become V2 heretics. Yet, he states that Catholics can rightfully refuse to accept what is proposed by those they insist are their true teachers. What is going on?

Catholics are taught by their teachers - their pastors, bishops, and the pope. To learn requires holding open one's mind to receive what is being presented. It is essentially a passive activity. To teach is to present with the expectation of being listened to in this way - it is essentially active. Now the reason why Catholics can be certain, when listening to a heretic who appears to possess authority, that what they are hearing is not truth, is because of contradiction. That is, the contradiction between what has been taught before, and what is being taught now. For while it is the role of the student to accept what is taught, it is impossible for a man to hold two contradictory propositions at the same time.

Note that the beginning of this process of identifying heresy, of being alarmed at the possibility, is not an active thing at all. It is passive. In the passive role of being taught, the student is asked to receive two contradictory propositions. The mind fails in the attempt. The student is alarmed, becomes active, and searches for the reason for the contradiction. And after further consideration (if necessary), he decides that the contradiction is real, and rejects the novelty. "Sifting" all that is proposed, to check for possible error, is an activity. A "student" who does this is not really learning - he is placing his own knowledge above that of the teacher, and waiting for the teacher to say something with which he agrees, before "accepting" it. This active "picking and choosing" is not what Catholics do when being taught. It is active, not passive. It is assessing, not learning.

It is possible for a Catholic to be certain that an untruth is an untruth, precisely because the faith resides in the intellect, and the intellect cannot simultaneously hold two mutually incompatible propositions. It is also possible to be certain that a particular untruth is a heresy - by the simple fact that it is incompatible with dogma. That it is possible to be uncertain does not destroy the fact that certainty is also possible. It just means that particular men may be more ignorant than others, or more stupid, or less diligent. But I think it fair to say that every Catholic who has gained the use of reason can identify universal salvation as a heresy, as one example.

The difficulties of Mr. Hand continue, in that he can't see the propriety of distinguishing further. He sees that it is right and licit to resist heresy (even while openly doubting it exists - let him explain that if he can), but he cannot see that there are further steps in the natural Catholic reaction which he is entitled, and ought, to take. And those additional steps are to check for signs of pertinacity, and then form a judgement. If your pastor stated during a sermon that all men are saved, then he may have been mistaken, or he may be a heretic. Approaching him after Mass would enable pertinacity to be assessed. "Do you know what you said? It's a heresy." His reaction will generally be one of two alternatives: Either he will tell you it isn't a heresy, and that you have to believe it, in which case you are dealing with a heretic; or, he will express surprise and regret for having erred, and retract his error. In the latter case there is no heresy - just a mistake. St. Paul has taught us to avoid a heretic, "after the first and the second admonition." In other words, once pertinacity becomes clear.

All of Church history proves that those who preach heresy are really heretics. "Material" heresy is a mistake. It is merely an error against faith made by one who means to speak the truth, but who slips, or is misled. To suggest that Karol Wojtyla, degree-qualified in dogmatic theology in Rome before the Revolution began, and claiming the highest office in the Church, and ignoring or persecuting every Catholic who opposes his non serviam, while publicly celebrating the Revolution as a "New Pentecost", can be reasonably judged to be mistaken or misled is positively absurd. Those "traditionalists" who defend Wojtyla speak of the "mental gymnastics" required to reconcile his actions and words with the true Faith. The fact that such things are necessary in the attempt to reconcile truth and lies is proof that no reasonable doubt is possible. Unreasonable doubt must needs be conjured.

Mr. Hand has postulated a completely different approach to the problem. While expressing doubts about the objective truth of the existence of heresy, he states that Catholics can resist all the same. Consequently, he seems to hold that one can act with an uncertain conscience in the gravest matters, which is immoral. Next, he states that Catholics should "sift" the magisterium for truth, and accept it, while rejecting any errors. Consequently, he is denying that Catholics are taught by the magisterium, and postulating that in fact they know better than the teaching office of Holy Church. And finally, he states that those who teach heresy can be Catholics, and maintain authority in Holy Church. Consequently he denies Catholics the right and indeed responsibility of "avoiding" the heretics. His novel approach finds no echo in Church history. It flies in the face of the warnings of Our Lord to beware wolves in the clothing of sheep. Indeed, it suggests that we need to beware of the sheep that wear the clothing of wolves! It flatly denies St. Paul's injunction to avoid heretics.

5. Catholics cannot really know what is heresy and what is not, until Holy Church judges infallibly.

This has been answered.

6. Catholics can know heresy before Holy Church judges infallibly.

Mr. Hand is not consistent. On the one hand he describes the "novelties", "errors", and "heresies" of the V2 sect, and on the other he suggests that we cannot be sure they are really what we think they are. He might respond that he is "pretty sure" that they are heresies, but not "absolutely sure". Unfortunately that isn't good enough. If you are going to reject the teaching of a general council and three popes, you had better be certain.

7. Catholics should not cut off communion with heretics who claim offices in Holy Church, but should wait for the much-mentioned infallible judgement, if it ever comes.

This also has been answered. It is a novelty founded upon an ipse dixit of the Abbe De Nantes. The Catholics who immediately rejected Nestorius, until then Patriarch of Alexandria, when he began preaching heresy, were justified by the pope after the fact. Their excommunications were declared to have been null and void, because "…he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever." (Quoted by Bellarmine, Ibid.) In other words, once he became a public heretic he lost his office, automatically and without any declaration by Rome.

8. The fruit of V2 is "threatening every day to make the Church more and more unrecognizable in contrast to her preconciliar reality which lasted nearly 2,000 years." The "Church must be warned and recalled from the new orientations which cannot work precisely because they oppose tradition in many respects…" The Church must be "called away from novelties and back to Tradition."

The Church is indefectible. She cannot fail. She is the Spotless Bride of Christ. The Church cannot cause evil, teach error, or cease being what she has been made by divine ordinance. In other words, she cannot fail in her essential mission, to teach, sanctify and govern, nor can she change in any essential. She is also "a city seated on a mountain, whose light cannot be hid." In other words, she is visible, and cannot become invisible. The statements made by Mr. Hand, quoted above, to the effect that the Church has somehow done the wrong thing, taken the wrong path, become obscured, or in any other way defected, are heresies. They are the fruit, no doubt, of his jerry-built theories which attempt to describe a true Church full of heretics. What a mess.

9. Bellarmine taught that a public judgement was necessary before Catholics could know a heretic.

Mr. Hand writes: "Bellarmine likewise refutes the notion that just anyone may judge an erring Pope…"
Bellarmine "refutes" no such thing. I assume this is why Mr. Hand does not quote Bellarmine in an attempt to prove this assertion. If Bellarmine really believed this, then his treatise would make no sense, for he goes to great pains to show that it is the constant tradition of Holy Church that heretics lose their offices by the very fact of their heresy. If he thought what Mr. Hand is claiming he thought, then surely he would have said so. After all, it does appear to be a somewhat connected point, doesn't it? Amazing where one can end up in pursuit of "proofs" for errors!

What would be even more amazing, if we hadn't come to expect it by now, is that later in his paper Mr. Hand acknowledges his opposition to Bellarmine on this very point, while simultaneously demonstrating that if he has read Bellarmine, it was while watching television in the dark. See below.

10. Bellarmine taught that even "internal heresy" resulted in the loss of ecclesiastical offices.

Mr. Hand writes, quoting a letter to a friend: "Interesting catch-22: John of St Thomas over Bellarmine is to be preferred vis a vis the question of how a heretical Pope is deposed (though Bellarmine was simply daydreaming, believing a heretical pope was actually an impossibility, of course) ....if Bellarmine's thesis were correct (ipso facto loss of heresy even for internal heresy) any ex cathedra pronouncement squaring anything with sacred Tradition would be a gigantic deception since a man not Pope could not bind the Church. John of St. Thomas saves us here."

Not even John of St. Thomas can save Mr. Hand, I'm afraid. It boggles the mind to try and comprehend how he can think that Bellarmine taught that secret heresy results in loss of office, when Bellarmine clearly taught that only "manifest" heresy has this effect. Bellarmine teaches: "The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved." (Ibid.)

Yes, it boggles the mind. But there's worse. In this same paper Mr. Hand has used Michael Davies' attempt to redefine Bellarmine's use of "manifest" so as to make it mean something apparently beyond what Karol Wojtyla's heresy is. Davies, as quoted by Hand: "…that formal heresy must be "manifest" which Wernz-Vidal interpreted as meaning 'notorious and publicly divulged' (Ius: Can. vol II p. 433) by competent Church authorities; not just by anyone's hunch." In fact, Mr. Hand's great hero and virtually sole support, John of St. Thomas, builds his whole case on the claim that until a public judgement is delivered, the "heresy" of a "pope" is not "manifest." And after quoting it, Mr. Hand yells at his readers: "There it is in a nutshell! Note those words carefully. READ IT AGAIN." Yes, read it again, Mr. Hand. And while you're reading, turn off the "telly", turn on the lights, and grab that copy of Bellarmine.

Now, if even secret heresy results in the loss of offices, according to Bellarmine, then why bother trying to show that Wojtyla's heresy is still a big secret? I have no answer to this. Neither, apparently, does Mr. Hand. He is merely engaged in throwing out whatever "arguments" might help to obscure the facts, the correct theology, and the sound Canon Law, in defence of a manifest heretic. It is a process of adjusting wool on the wolf, with the result of assisting him to get among the sheep. Or perhaps it is a process of casting dust into the eyes of the sheep, so that the pathetic attempt by the wolf to don wool does not give him away so readily. In either case, without attempting to assess Mr. Hand's motives, it is disgusting to behold.

11. Bellarmine taught that one must resist a heretic "pope", but not reject him.

One must truly marvel at the persistence of these defenders of heretics in their errors. Mr. Hand quotes Bellarmine as follows: "Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior. (De Romano Pontifice. II.29.)" Nice quote. Apparently Mr. Hand is under the illusion that St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, Doctor of the Universal Church, contradicted himself on this grave matter within one treatise. Ah, but we must keep in view that when he wrote, in the very next chapter, that a heretical "pope" would be no pope at all, he was "daydreaming." So, he wasn't "daydreaming" in chapter 29, but he fell into a swoon as he began chapter 30? Am I really answering this tripe?

The solution to this idiocy, dressed up as a difficulty, is that in chapter 29 St. Robert is discussing bad or evil popes, and in chapter 30 he is discussing what would happen were a pope to lose the faith, an entirely distinct thing. Bad popes can be resisted, in grave matters; and heretics are not Catholics, and therefore can't be popes, argues Bellarmine. No contradiction unless you can't read.

The only way to make these two chapters contradict each other is to rewrite the first - by putting "Pontiff" in quotation marks. In other words, to pretend that in chapter 29 Bellarmine is referring to a heretic, who is therefore not a Pontiff. Then you've only got to explain chapter 30. For example, why does Bellarmine prove that a heretic-"pope" would not be a true pope, if he's just stated that he can be resisted anyway?

Bellarmine asks the rhetorical questions: "Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us?" And the answer: "This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope." (De Romano Pontifice. bk. II, ch. 30.)

Now, if in chapter 29 Bellarmine was referring to a "Pontiff" - not a Pontiff - then why does he propose this great difficulty in chapter 30? What could be difficult about avoiding the visible head of Holy Church, of separating from him, if the answer has been given in chapter 29? What indeed? And the answer is evident - "avoiding" a heretic does not mean moving to the other end of the bar when he drops into the "local" for a beer. It means cutting off communion with him, or as Bellarmine puts it, "separating ourselves" from him. Oh. So pointing at his heresies, complaining to your wife, writing emails about it to strangers, and switching to a sit-com when "Nothing Sacred" appears on your box, is not enough?

Perhaps in Heaven St. Robert awaits with great anticipation the arrival of Michael Davies and Stephen Hand, so that he can congratulate them on having solved the problem which no Father, Doctor, theologian, canonist, Pope, or indeed simple layman, had ever been able to solve before they appeared at the close of the Twentieth Century, that great age of learning and love of wisdom. "How can we be required to avoid our head?" "Why, we simply refuse to judge!"

Indeed, this is truly avoiding one's head.

12. All the thoughts of the Doctors on the question of "heretic-popes" are "hypothetical."

No, they are not. Doctors of the Universal Church are not those who wrote stupidities for the confusion of the simple and the unwary. St. Robert Bellarmine did not write, "This principle is most certain", as a hypothesis. He wrote that, surprisingly enough, because he believed that the principle he was about to expound was "most certain." Likewise with most of the rest of that chapter of De Romano Pontifice. It contains a series of principles, all of which are thoroughly proved from both reason and tradition. The only part which is rightly described as "hypothetical" is the suggestion that a pope could become a heretic. Bellarmine, followed by many "sedevacantists", did not believe it could ever happen. But that doesn't change the fact that the "most certain" principles and conclusions are "most certain."

Bellarmine writes: "…the manifest heretic cannot be Pope." He does not write: "If a manifest heretic wasn't pope…" He taught that manifest heresy excludes one from membership in the Mystical Body; that non-members cannot possess jurisdiction; that if somebody becomes a non-member they lose any offices they may hold, automatically and without any declaration. And he wrote that the Fathers universally taught all of these things. There's nothing hypothetical about any of them. They are truths of the faith.

To recapitulate, the idea that a pope might become a heretic is hypothetically considered. That a manifest heretic cannot be pope, whatever the cause of his claim, is certain - i.e. not "hypothetical." The Communist, Vatican 2 heretic, Karol Wojtyla, was never pope. Only Catholic men are eligible for the papacy. "III. Appointment to the office of the Primacy. 1^o What is required by divine law for this appointment: (a) The person appointed must be a man who possesses the use of reason, due to the ordination the Primate must receive to possess the power of Holy Orders. This is required for the validity of the appointment. Also required for validity is that the man appointed be a member of the Church. Heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are therefore excluded." (Coronata, Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Rome: Marietti 1:312,316. Emphasis added).

13. Bellarmine's doctrine is merely his "opinion." Bellarmine was "daydreaming." Bellarmine is not to be taken as seriously meaning what he wrote. He was "deviously" proposing a reductio ad absurdum so as to prove that popes could not fall into heresy.

Disrespectful in the highest degree. Unlike our opponents, Bellarmine took truth seriously. It was not a game to play with fools. Bellarmine's doctrine is not merely his "opinion" in the common English meaning of that word. The Latin, which we translate as "opinion", is "sententia". It is not "a belief based on grounds short of proof," which is what the English word means. It means "aphorism, or teaching." An insight into the meaning can be gleaned from the fact that our English word "sense" is related to it - as in "the sense in which he used that term." It relates to "meaning", so that Peter Lombard's book (the standard theology text until the Summa displaced it) is referred to in English as "The Book of Sentences". Mr. Hand would call it "The Book of Opinions." These "teachings" or "sententiae" were presented and defended by the ablest scholastics, and only some of them were disputed. Generally the process was one of refining the wording of the "sentence" so as to express better the doctrine it contained. Examples of "sentences" are those which expressed the dogmas of The Real Presence, the Divine Maternity, The Incarnation, etc. In other words, not "opinions" in any modern sense of that term.

The particular point that a pope who became a heretic would lose the papacy was his "opinion", shared by everybody else of note except Cajetan, whose arguments he refuted thoroughly. Since his day pretty much everybody has followed Bellarmine. But the basis for the "opinion" was theological truth, described by him as the universal teaching of the Fathers. If Mr. Hand thinks he can dispute the Fathers, then will anyone who has gotten this far be surprised?

As for the suggestion that Bellarmine didn't expect to be taken seriously, well, that is frankly impious. He was writing a serious treatise on a most important part of Sacred Doctrine - the Roman Papacy - at a time when it was particularly under attack from rabid Protestants. This treatise was part of the corpus upon which he was declared a Doctor of the Universal Church. Mr. Hand is suggesting, based on the incredible falsehood that Bellarmine taught that secret heresy would result in the loss of an office, that Bellarmine was presenting a humorous lie with the hope that his readers would pick up the irony!

People like this are why the True Church has a Holy Inquisition.

14. Bellarmine "invented the theory of automatic deposition."

No, Bellarmine merely applied it to the papacy, in the hypothesis of a pope disappearing into heresy. And his application was not in any way novel. For example, the Roman Clergy had "deposed" Pope Liberius for manifest heresy a millennium earlier. Mr. Hand would know this if he would only learn before attempting to teach. It is explained in De Romano Pontifice, bk. IV.

15. "Bellarmine is to some degree responsible for misleading [some] Catholics."

The sheer stupidity of in any way attributing the errors of some to the writings of a Doctor of the Universal Church, without any reasonable basis! This can only be described as the "Hand Principle". It is defined as "blaming the dog when a blind man refuses to hold its collar and falls off the cliff." Applying the "Hand Principle" to himself, we can say without fear of contradiction that "Bellarmine has misled Hand." The truth, though, is that Hand just didn't bother to read him - he thought he could get to Bellarmine's meaning by thinking about him, or some such method.

It is Mr. Hand that is responsible for misleading some Catholics. We hope not too many.

16. The judgements of individuals without jurisdiction are not binding on others.

This is true. What is not true is the suggestion that objective truth - such as that Karol Wojtyla is a heretic and no pope - is "optional" as a result. Mr. Hand doesn't like those "sedevacantists" who insist on making this clear. He thinks it is "judgemental" and "usurping authority" when it is neither. It is a spiritual work of mercy.

But while we are on the subject of rash judgement and charity, here are some of Mr. Hand's gems: "… micro-objections-and-spin superimposed on his [Bellarmine's] words…"; " rash logic and amateurish interpretations of Canon Law…"; "they have forsaken charity without which we are empty clashing sounds (1 Cor 13)."; "It ends, however, in a poetical justice whereby God gives these up to the consequence of their "logic" and equations…"; "…laymen in their living room armchairs or pontificating on their keyboards or in chat rooms!"; "…poor fools…"; "…prefer their own opinion to theirs---or attempt to "spin" it like a basketball beyond recognition into meaning something else--- is presumptuous in the extreme…"; "To mock him imperils ones very salvation as it indicates terrible temerity, presumption and bad faith."; "…both grave sin and a scandal."; "…an extreme presumption which imperils ones very soul and communion with the Church, it seems to me. This is very serious."

He can't be serious! If he thought this was serious, surely he would take it seriously!

17. Cum ex Apostolatus never had the force of law, and was never incorporated in the Code.

This is one of the most amazing errors in this veritable catalogue. Cum ex Apostolatus was a bull, promulgated by Pope Paul IV, which legislated that if a heretic was elected "pope" it would be invalid, and even the universal acclamation of the Church could not rectify the defect. What basis do we have for the assertion that it never had the force of law? None. The Abbe's ipse dixit, once more.

The truth is that it has not only the force of ecclesiastical law, but in the fact that it defines that a heretic cannot possibly be a pope, it is a reflection of divine law, which is unchangeable by its nature. Furthermore, the footnotes in the Code reference Cum ex Apostolatus as one of the bases of Canon 188,4. Canon 188,4 lays down that: There are certain causes which effect the tacit resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are : …(4) if he has publicly fallen away from the Catholic faith;…"

What is this if it is not "incorporation in the Code"? So much for the Abbe De Nantes.

18. Karol Wojtyla hasn't taught heresy.

And Stephen Hand hasn't made twenty or thirty serious errors in a dozen pages. Let's see. All men are saved, false religions are means of salvation, the Moslems and Jews worship the One, True, God together with us, the perfidious Jews are his "elder brothers in the faith", the Jews are not guilty of the death of Christ, all men have a natural right to religious liberty…

19. "Manifest" as used by Bellarmine means "notorious" according to Wernz and Vidal.

"Manifest" is equivalent to "public". "Public" is defined in the Code. Canon 2197,1: "It is public if it is already divulged, or takes place or is involved in such circumstances that it can and ought to be prudently judged that it will easily be divulged." Quite frankly, trying to insist that Bellarmine was thinking of a front page headline in the London Times as constituting "manifest" is ridiculous, but that's not going to save Karol Wojtyla. His heresy is so notorious that any high-school child who has been brought up in Wojtyla's new sect will argue vehemently that these heresies of his are in fact Divine Revelation. And woe betides those who dispute them! Try it some time, and see how you go. "Occult" heresy? Only if you are thinking Wojtyla is an "Occultist."

20. St. Francis de Sales taught that "private judgement about a matter so grave is absolutely ruled out." St. Alphonsus taught the same thing.

No they didn't. They stated that the hierarchy would have to act if a pope became a heretic. So the hierarchy has failed to act. They've failed (in general) to defend the faith too, in case it has escaped our intrepid theologian's notice. Since they haven't, are we to infer that we are not to do what we can? Of course not. All this shows is that at some time in the future the hierarchy can "depose" the already non-pope Karol Wojtyla (if necessary), scrub his "reforms" and those of his immediate predecessors, organise a papal election, and restore Holy Church. By "depose" I mean "make clear to all by a public judgement".

21. There is a presumption of validity when a man claims the papacy and most Catholics accept him.

No there isn't. Cum ex Apostolatus teaches and legislates the very opposite, in the case of a heretic. Wojtyla was a Communist and a V2 heretic before his "election." That is notorious. While the good Catholics were being executed, tortured, exiled, and generally prevented from maintaining any positions of authority (vide Cardinal Mindszenty et al.), Karol Wojtyla was being promoted! Let's face facts - if Wojtyla was a Catholic in Communist Poland, then nobody in the Party suspected it. Why would they? After all, there wasn't any evidence.

22. "…it is another true and incontrovertible perpetual teaching of the Church that men who are overwhelmingly and publicly recognised as Popes are legitimate Popes."

No it isn't. It is the common teaching that if there is a defect in an election, the election can be "convalidated" by the acclamation of the Church. But as Coronata and all other canonists have stated, non-members of Holy Church cannot become popes. This is divine law, unchangeable by its nature. No amount of "acclamation" can make a dead man, a woman, a madman, a kangaroo, or a non-Catholic, pope.

23. To tell others that Karol Wojtyla is not pope is a grave sin and a scandal.

Mr. Hand invents sins. Is he an authority? To tell others that manifest heretics are popes is to contradict all of tradition; it is to deny the authority of the popes who declared St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, St. Robert, and St. Francis de Sales, Doctors of the Universal Church; it is to contradict Pope Innocent III, and Pope Paul IV, who explicitly taught the same thing as these Doctors; it is to wreck the basis upon which a simple Catholic can safely deal with these heretics who claim authority, while leaving them at the mercy of "intellectuals" such as Michael Davies and Stephen Hand; and it is to defend the claims of heretics.

24. Not to pray for the heretic at mass is to endanger one's communion with the Church.

Not to read before trying to teach is to endanger others' souls as well as one's own, while also endangering one's communion with the Church.

"Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation..." (Wernz-Vidal: Ius Canonicum, Vol vii, n. 398. Emphasis added.)

"Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state." (Szal, Rev Ignatius: Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA, 1948, p.2. Emphasis added.)

"Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded ['probabiliter'] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refs to Sanchez and Palao]." (de Lugo: Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8. Emphasis added.)

25. Popes can become heretics.

An interesting and probably erroneous view. Bellarmine, Liguori, and all of the best authorities believed otherwise. Although at the time Bellarmine wrote he stated that the opposite view was the more common opinion. Why one would choose it is hard to imagine, unless one were concerned to have a back-up position should the fact that Wojtyla's heresy really is notorious eventually penetrate one's defences.

I hope and trust that what I've written is sufficient to at least demonstrate that if Mr. Hand is right, and that Karol Wojtyla really is the pope, then this is not because Mr. Hand has understood the reasons for it. In fact, once his assertions are subjected to a little scrutiny it can be seen that he can't even seem to comprehend what it is each authority teaches, let alone interpret them correctly.

John Lane
Perth, Western Australia
Feast of St. Claire, 1999.

Stephen Hand's Web document was attached here for the information of those who might have been interested to read it in its entirety. Unfortunately, Mr. Hand has seen fit to accuse this writer of copyright infringement, and has threatened to continue calumniating me by accusing me of lying if his work is not removed.

Consequently I have removed it. He has also threatened to continue to defame me by accusing me of lying if his name is not removed from the above work of mine. He has stated that he has stuck to issues and has not hitherto attacked persons. Apparently he does not wish to be held accountable for his written words. Instead Mr. Hand seems to employ a novel principle by which it is seen as acceptable to attack a group of people by labelling them "sedevacantists" but not acceptable to attack a man by referring to him by name.

The traditional Catholic approach to disputes on grave matters is as follows. Men are responsible for what they say, and even more so for what they publish. Anything they say or publish is therefore subject to criticism and contradiction if it is wrong. Furthermore, in a dispute a man's credibility is a critical asset. Therefore it is both fair and reasonable to attempt to reduce it in the eyes of readers, using only honest and charitable means, of course.

It is not acceptable, nor is it just, to attack another on the basis of his motives, as Mr. Hand does, and it is certainly not charitable or just to accuse another of lying unless one also presents irrefutable evidence. Even then, such an action is morally dangerous.

Quite frankly, that an opponent would stoop to this gutter level says more about his confidence, or lack thereof, in the truth of his position than it says about the unfortunate subject of his filthy accusations.

Finally, I will happily cease pointing out Mr. Hand's ignorance, if and when he publicly retracts the fruit of it - i.e. his works against "sedevacantism." As it stands he sets himself up, in public, as an authority, and I regard him as a threat to truth and will act to reduce his credibility in the eyes of those who might otherwise be fooled by his ranting. I will continue to avoid judging his motives, even though he seems to delight in judging ours. That remains his problem, not ours. Home