Dogma, Heresy, and Vatican II

An answer to Michael Davies's An Heretical Pope?

In his article, An Heretical Pope?, Michael Davies presents the "sede vacante" position as follows, "Claims have been made that one or more of the 'conciliar popes', that is to say Pope John XXIII and his successors, were heretics and therefore forfeited the papacy. Those who include Pope John Paul II in this category claim that we have no pope and that therefore the Holy See is vacant, sedes vacante, which is why such people are referred to as 'sedevacantists'." Davies then proceeds to explain that if the See of Rome were vacant for any extended period, with no Cardinal Camerlengo to organise a papal election and "administer" the Church, then She would effectively disappear. Now since visible unity is one of the essential marks of Holy Church such a result would mean She had defected, which is impossible. Therefore, argues Davies, it is impossible for the "sedevacantist" assertion to be true. Furthermore, Davies asserts that none of the "conciliar popes" have been formal heretics. Hence, none of them meet the conditions laid down by Church teaching which would result in their loss of the papacy. There are a number of serious errors in Michael Davies' theology which we will address shortly, but before we do it would be well to gain a better understanding of the "sede vacante" position.

There are a number of reasons many Catholics believe that the "papacies" of Paul VI and John Paul II, at least, are null and void. Firstly, such Catholics argue from the constant tradition of Holy Church that a manifest heretic cannot be pope, simply because one cannot be head of that of which one is not a member, and all theologians agree that manifest heretics are not members of Holy Church. Since both Paul VI and John Paul II have publicly acted and spoken as heretics, and have ignored all protests by Catholics against their heresy, they are rightly presumed to be formally guilty of heresy, and therefore incapable of being popes.

Secondly, "sedevacantist" Catholics argue that Holy Church is indefectible, which means She cannot fail in Her essential mission. This indefectibility extends to all those things which pertain to Her divine mission, including worship, laws, and doctrines. Paul VI officially promulgated "Vatican II" (hereinafter referred to as the "Vatican anti-Council", or "V2"), which contains many errors against Catholic truth. Moreover, Paul VI promulgated the Novus Ordo "Missae" (the New Order of the "Mass"), which is essentially a Protestant meal rather than an act of sacrifice. Likewise, John Paul II has officially promulgated a new Code of Canon "Law" which contains "laws" which are contrary to divine law. In this and every other major act of his "reign" he has continued the implementation of V2, publicly praising it and in fact making it the explicit cornerstone of his "pontificate." Now if these new forms of worship, "laws," and doctrines which are evil, have been given to us by Holy Church then She has defected. But Holy Church cannot give stones when Her children ask for bread, so we are forced to the conclusion that these so-called "popes" were nothing of the sort, but were in fact impostors masquerading as popes.

In a nutshell, the above are typical "sede vacante" arguments. There are other grounds for doubting the validity of the "conciliar popes" but these should suffice to illustrate the insufficiency of Davies' description of the "sede vacante" position. As a point of clarification, it should also be noted that far from asserting that these men fell from the papacy through heresy, many "sedevacantists" deny that they ever held the papacy, since as manifest heretics prior to their election they were not matter for the papacy to begin with. It is Catholic teaching that to be a valid candidate (matter) for the papacy one must be a sane Catholic male. This point is important, for Michael Davies and others point out that St. Robert Bellarmine held that a true Pope would never fall into manifest heresy. According to this position St. Bellarmine's opinion is not contradicted, since Paul VI and John Paul II were never popes to begin with.

Michael Davies has conceded that it is the common teaching of theologians that a manifest heretic is not pope, so it is not necessary to prove this point. However, he follows his explanation of this principle with the following, "Catholic theologians accept that a pope could lose his office through heresy, but it would have to be such notorious heresy that no doubt concerning the matter could exist in the minds of the faithful…"

The latter clause of this statement, the section following "but it would" is just another of Michael Davies's ipse dixits. There is no support for it in the theologians he cites, and for that reason he gives no real proof. The "proof" he does present only shows that the heresy must be "manifest," "public" and/or "notorious" which is not the same thing as being "so obvious that no doubt concerning the matter could exist in the minds of the faithful."

As Wernz & Vidal state (cited by Davies) "A notorious offence can be defined as one for which the evidence is so certain that it can in no way be either hidden or excused." This is not to say that some (or most) won't attempt to excuse it anyway (like Davies). Hence, even if only some recognise the heresy for what it is, because only some are sufficiently alert and well-educated, then that is sufficient to constitute "manifest" or "public" heresy. Something is manifest or public when it is capable of being known by the public. Canon 2197:1 states: "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." Certainly it is not the common teaching of theologians and canonists that heresy must be notorious for it to result in loss of membership in Holy Church, and therefore the loss of any offices which the heretic may hitherto have held. The truth is that this very matter is also covered in the Code, by Canon 188 §4. This canon states: "By tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric... publicly defects from the Catholic Faith." Note the word "publicly" - the Code does not use the word "notoriously" in connection with this question.

At any rate, if some members of "the public" fail to recognise heresy or error for what it is, this doesn't make it less manifest, but only indicates their ignorance and/or faithlessness. During the Arian crisis the Arianism of the vast majority of so-called Catholics (including most of the clergy) was certainly manifest. Indeed it was preached daily in most of the churches, chapels and cathedrals which had hitherto been Catholic. But it would not be true to say that there could be no doubt "in the minds of the faithful" unless one defines "faithful" so that it excludes those who fail to recognise the heresy, which is to propose a self-verifying shibboleth. No, the sad fact is that when the clergy disappear into heresy, the vast majority of the faithful are dragged with them, as history sadly attests. How appropriate the words of that gentle saint and fierce defender of Holy Church, St Athanasius : "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ"

Davies' next point is that the vacancy of the See of Rome must be declared by a General Council, but he concedes that some authorities (theologians) maintain that a declaration would not be necessary. In other words, the necessity for a declaration is a disputed point, so little can be made of it. Of course, even were it absolutely necessary, the fact that it hasn't occurred to date is no objection to the thesis that these heretics haven't been/are not popes. Theologians agree that a manifest heretic is deposed ipso facto (by the very fact) of his public heresy, so a declaration would not accomplish the removal of a heretic-"pope" but would, if anything, simply clear the way for a papal election. This Davies concedes also, making it moot why he raised the "requirement" for a General Council in the first place. The only possible value it could have for his argument would seem to be if it led his readers to think that they couldn't ever know a heretic until Holy Church declared the fact. Once again, I simply refer to the Arian heresy. If Catholics are not capable of knowing a heretic without specific guidance by living Authority, then why all the fuss during the Arian crisis? Almost all the members of the entire "hierarchy" were heretics, and the Pope signed an ambiguous formula apparently calculated to gloss over the heresy and thus let the heretics off the hook. And yet the Catholics cut off communion with the heretics all the same. Were they wrong to do so? Was St. Athanasius wrong in resisting, since no General Council or tribunal named the heretics as heretics? Should he have said, "These people seem to be going against Nicea, but we can't judge."?

As a final preliminary, Davies' claim that the Cardinal Camerlengo maintains the visible unity of Holy Church during a vacancy in the Roman See is so preposterous that we can let it be. If Davies wants to be taken seriously he ought to provide some support for such statements, instead of simply referring the reader to the Catholic Encyclopedia, which says nothing of the sort.

But we delay. The above should clear the decks for a consideration of the key issues which Michael Davies has raised, and on which he errs. His key errors are the nature and source of dogma, and consequently, the nature of heresy.

On heresy, Davies writes, "The Code of Canon Law defines an heretic as one who after baptism, while remaining nominally a Catholic, pertinaciously doubts or denies one of the truths which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith. It teaches us that by divine and Catholic faith must be believed all that is contained in the written word of God or in tradition, that is, the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church and proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church or by its Ordinary Universal Magisterium. No teaching is to be considered as dogmatically defined unless this is evidently proved."

Now this is correct as far as it goes, and in fact is essentially the text of Canon 1323. But Davies misinterprets it, and the key to his failure to understand it lies in the word "defined" in the final sentence. This will become apparent as we review the teaching of Holy Church on dogma and heresy.

As a base point, here is the teaching of the (true) Council of the Vatican on what must be believed by Catholics: "...all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed." (Emphasis added).

A further explanation is given by Daniel Coghlan, D.D., Professor of Dogmatic Theology at St Patrick's College, Maynooth, in his article "Dogma" in the Catholic Encyclopedia, (volume V, p.89): "...a dogma is now understood to be a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful. It might be described briefly as a revealed truth defined by the Church; but private revelations do not constitute dogmas, and some theologians confine the word defined to doctrines solemnly defined by the pope or a by a general council, while a revealed truth becomes a dogma even when proposed by the Church through her ordinary magisterium or teaching office." (Emphasis in the original).

It should be noted that the word defined does not necessarily mean solemnly defined, even though many authors use the terms as equivalent for the sake of convenience. Hence, when section 3 of Canon 1323 (above) states that "No teaching is to be considered as dogmatically defined unless this is evidently proved," we are not to take this as meaning anything which contradicts the wording of the rest of the Canon.

Now to gain some further understanding of the highly technical definition of the Vatican Council, consider the following excerpt from Letters on Christian Doctrine, by Fr de Zulueta, S.J., (Burns, Oats & Washburne, 1922, 9th edition.). Being the teaching of a very well-known Jesuit theologian, it is of far greater weight than the teaching of an untrained layman who always denies that he is a theologian when challenged. It was revised in accordance with the new Code of Canon Law (1917) by another Jesuit theologian, Fr H. Davis, S.J. Speaking of heresy (p. 51) de Zulueta says: "…be it carefully observed, it is not necessary for the guilt of heresy that the doctrine should have been solemnly defined by supreme authority; it is quite sufficient that it should form part of the ordinary daily teaching of the Church throughout the world, which is infallible. To say, 'It is not heresy to deny this doctrine : for the Church has never defined it,' is utterly unsound. Hence it would be heresy to deny any truth contained in the Scriptures, because the Church teaches all that the Scriptures do." (Emphasis in the original).

When we are taught that dogmas are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith, this means that they must be revealed truths (divine) and that they must be taught as such by Holy Church (Catholic). This does not mean they must have been solemnly defined, but simply that they have been taught infallibly, and this is done on a daily basis by Holy Church when She teaches through Her Bishops and approved theologians throughout the world (the ordinary, universal magisterium, referred to by the Vatican Council in the above-quoted definition). But how do we know if something is taught by the ordinary, universal magisterium? We know that a particular doctrine is a dogma when it has been taught always, everywhere, and by everyone (i.e. The Canon of St. Vincent of Lerins). Here is how Dr Ludwig Ott explains it, in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (1958, Mercier Press), pp 4,5: "Two factors or elements may be distinguished in the concept of dogma:-

1. An immediate Divine Revelation of the particular Dogma (revelatio immediate divina or revelatio formalis), i.e., the Dogma must be immediately revealed by God either explicitly (explicite) or inclusively (implicate), and therefore be contained in the sources of Revelation (Holy Writ or Tradition).
   
2. The Promulgation of the Dogma by the Teaching Authority of the Church (propositio Ecclesiae). This implies, not merely the promulgation of the Truth, but also the obligation on the part of the Faithful of believing the Truth. This Promulgation by the Church may be made either in an extraordinary manner through a solemn decision of faith made by the Pope or a General Council (Iudicium solemne) or through the ordinary and general teaching power of the Church (Magisterium ordinarium et universale). The latter may be found easily in the catechisms issued by the Bishops." (Emphasis added).
   

To reduce the sin and crime of heresy to the denial of only those truths solemnly defined would be effectively to throw open large sections of the deposit of Faith to doubt and denial. According to this unorthodox idea a Catholic prior to the sixteenth century would have been able to deny many subsequently defined truths of the Catholic Faith without being a heretic! Consider the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Ott states (p.205, op.cit.) that this is "de fide on the ground of the general promulgation of doctrine." As all know, it is heresy to deny a de fide doctrine. And yet this particular de fide doctrine has never been solemnly defined. Consider also the following from Melchior Cano: "Whoever would deny that the power of binding and loosing which Christ is believed to have given to St. Peter is now present in the Bishop of Rome, such a person is lawfully and rightly held to be a heretic. Whoever would deny to those who have succeeded Peter the strength of Peter for confirming his brothers must be judged to be heretical." Lib. VI, cap. VII. (Cited by Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser, in his Relatio for the Council of the Vatican on the proposed definition of infallibility, on July 11, 1870. Emphasis added.) In other words, the great theologian Cano asserted that a person denying a doctrine not yet solemnly defined would be a heretic.

Since this whole area seems to be greatly clouded at present, here are some more quotes from authorities. Firstly, let us hear Timotheus Zapalena, S.J. (De Ecclesia Christi, pars altera, Rome, 1940, p. 67) : "The episcopal college, the successor to the Apostolic College, is infallible in proposing revealed doctrine or things connected with revealed teachings, as we saw in the preceding thesis [on ecumenical councils]. But this College is not less present in the ordinary and scattered teaching of the bishops, than in the extraordinary and conciliar. Therefore the bishops are no less infallible when they teach in unison by their ordinary magisterium, than when they exercise the solemn or extraordinary magisterium...

"3. The agreement of the scattered episcopate, since it is by no means as solemn as that of a council, is not so easily perceived; the same is true of the intention to teach from the fullness of the magisterial power. Hence, since in accordance with the norm of Canon Law, 'No matter is to be understood as dogmatically defined unless this fact is manifestly evident', this makes it difficult to discern with certainty in regard to a particular dogma from the Ordinary Magisterium alone. Nevertheless, suitable means are not lacking by which it can be known sufficiently: for example, from catechisms published for the use of the people and approved by the bishops, from encyclicals and pastoral letters, from the decrees of particular councils; or from the fact that the doctrine, everywhere in the world, in sermons to the people, is habitually preached as Catholic, or condemned as heretical ... [sic] Finally, even disciplinary laws and liturgical usages contribute in their manner in showing this agreement. But the utility of this magisterium is seen most of all in the fact that it is the most apt instrument for the preparation of solemn definitions themselves. Cf. DB. 1836."

Ven. Pope Pius IX also exounded this truth in Tuas Libenter. "For even if it were a question of that submission which is to be offered in the act of divine faith, it would not be limited to those things which have been defined by the explicit decrees of the ecumenical Councils or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would also have to be extended to those things which are handed down by the ordinary magisterium of the whole Church spread throughout the world as divinely revealed, and therefore are held to pertain to the Faith by Catholic theologians in universal and constant agreement." (Emphasis added.)

Hence we see that there are doctrines not yet solemnly defined which have nevertheless been taught infallibly by Holy Church, through her ordinary, universal magisterium. That is, through the daily teaching of her bishops scattered throughout the world, when these bishops can be shown to have always and everywhere taught the same thing on a particular point. Therefore it can be seen that Michael Davies's entire argument falls. Once one accepts the definition of heresy proposed for our belief by the Vatican Council, as one must to be a Catholic, then it is obvious that many of the Conciliar errors are heresies.

Davies effectively challenges us to show which errors are in fact heresies. An example is Religious Liberty. While its contrary, dogmatic intolerance, has never been solemnly defined as such (to my knowledge), Religious Liberty has been solemnly condemned by Pope Pius IX, in Quanta Cura.

The following is the teaching of the Vatican anti-Council (from Dignitatis Humanae, On Religious Liberty) : "This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others within due limits. The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognised in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right." (Emphasis added).

This teaching is most certainly heresy, or words have no meaning. The false doctrine that men have a natural right to profess whatever religion they choose is certainly contrary to the virtue of religion, which obliges us to learn, believe and then practice the truth, for it asserts a "right" to believe, practice, and preach error. It is certainly contrary to the entire concept of divine revelation, for it asserts a "right" to reject it publicly. It is certainly contrary to the entire tradition of Holy Church as pertains to Her authority, since She has ever asserted Her right to try heretics as criminals, and Her right to hand them over to the secular power for punishment, and the right of the secular power to punish them as dangerous to the common good. In fact, it so completely contrary to the spirit and letter of Catholic Truth that Pope Pius IX, quoting Pope Gregory XVI, described it as "insanity."

Some evidence of the constant teaching of Holy Church on this point was presented by Fr Joseph Rickaby, S.J., in Oxford Conference number 2, 7 February, 1897 : Church And State, Ideals And Actualities. "In the Encyclical Quanta Cura, which prefaces the celebrated Syllabus of 1864, Pius IX. writes: 'You know well, Venerable Brethren, that at this time there are found not a few men, who apply to civil society the impious and absurd principle of Naturalism, as they call it, and dare to teach that the best system of public society and the progress of civilisation altogether require that human society be constituted and governed without any regard to religion, as though religion did not exist, or at least without any distinction being made between the true and false religions. And, contrary to the teaching of Holy Writ, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they hesitate not to assert that the best condition of society is that in which the Sovereign Power recognises no duty of restraining by statute penalties offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as the public peace requires.'

"In the same Encyclical he condemns the doctrine, 'that the Church is not competent by right to restrain with temporal penalties offenders against her laws.' Three of the condemned propositions of the Syllabus, nn. 24, 77, 78, are on the same matter. Pius VI., in his Bull Auctorem fidei, condemns this among the other errors of the Jansenist Synod of Pistoia, that the Church has no proper means of enforcing obedience to her laws other than persuasion and spiritual censures. Leo X. condemned this proposition of Luther: 'The burning of heretics is against the will of the Spirit' - a condemnation to which we must presently recur. Finally, not to multiply examples, Gregory XI wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London: 'Cause the said John Wycliffe by our authority to be arrested and committed to prison.' (Wilkins, Concilia, ii;. 116)." (Emphasis added).

After defining this pernicious doctrine as false, along with some other equally (if that be possible!) devastating errors, Pope Pius IX (Quanta Cura) wrote: "Amidst, therefore, such great perversity of depraved opinions, we, well remembering our Apostolic Office, and very greatly solicitous for our most holy Religion, for sound doctrine and the salvation of souls which is entrusted to us by God, and (solicitous also) for the welfare of human society itself, have thought it right again to raise up our Apostolic voice. Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned."

Michael Davies himself recognises the incompatibility of the heresy of V2 with the truth, but because he has defined dogma incorrectly he cannot see that what V2 (and Paul VI and John Paul II) espouse is outright heresy. Instead, because dogmatic intolerance has not been solemnly defined by a General Council, or by a Pope speaking explicitly ex cathedra, he thinks it is possible to deny it without being a heretic. Michael Davies has even said that at some stage the two contraries will somehow have to be "reconciled" by Holy Church. Need it be said that "reconciling" opposites is what madmen and Modernists attempt to do?

Another example of heresy in the Conciliar anti-Church is the doctrine that non-Catholic (and even non-Christian!) religions are means of salvation, and that therefore the members of these sects are in some way united to the members of the Mystical Body, the Catholic Church. Consider the following (from the Dogmatic Constitution on The Church) : "There is furthermore a sharing in prayer and spiritual benefits; these Christians are indeed in some real way joined to us in the Holy Spirit for, by his gifts and graces, his sanctifying power is also active in them and he has strengthened some of them even to the shedding of their blood." And (from the Decree on Ecumenism): "It follows that the separated Churches and communities as such, though they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation." (Emphasis added).

Heresy, pure and simple. Here is the true teaching of the Catholic Church, presented by the Popes. Firstly, Pope Innocent III (Denz. 423), "With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved.." Secondly, Pope Pius IX (Denz. 1647), "It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood." And the same Holy Father (Syllabus of Errors), condemned the following propositions: "16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation." And: "17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ."

Thirdly, Pope Leo XII (Ubi Primum), "We profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. ... For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: 'If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.'" Finally, Pope St. Pius X (Jucunda Sane) taught, "It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation."

Indeed there are serious reasons for rejecting completely the anti-Council of the Vatican, along with the "Popes" who have promulgated and defended it. V2 taught blatant heresy, and those who adhere to it or teach it are heretics. That Michael Davies cannot see this is a result of his failure to appreciate the true nature of dogma, and therefore of heresy.


John Lane
Perth, Western Australia.
September 3, 1999
Feast of St. Pius X.

Note: This essay was first presented for the consideration of the public on February 27th, 1998, Feast of St. Gabriel of Our Lady of Sorrows. Since that time the author has made a number of revisions, both for clarity of language and by adding further material which assists in demonstrating that Michael Davies' continual efforts in favour of the chief wolf of our time are not merely useless, but irresponsible.

Note 2: The author is most grateful to Mr. James Larrabee, of Berkeley, California, for his translation of the text of Zapalena presented in the body of the essay.

Home