Concerning an SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism - Novus Ordo Watch

Bellarmine. I c<strong>an</strong> see two d<strong>an</strong>gers that c<strong>an</strong> rise from such opinion - to fall into the heresy of
Conciliarism, which was condemned by the Church - or at least, to fall into subjectivism.
What c<strong>an</strong> tell us, for sure, that a declaration of heresy coming from a group of bishops is not
<strong>an</strong> attempt to make <strong>an</strong> act of deposition?
a) Obviously the 2 nd <strong>an</strong>d 3 rd opinions require no further comment.
b) In relation to Fr. Boulet’s comment on the 4 th opinion, I am reluct<strong>an</strong>t to follow him in discussing
the d<strong>an</strong>ger that might arise from the doctrine expressed. Either the doctrine is true or it is false. It
may well be true <strong>an</strong>d still be occasion for some d<strong>an</strong>ger. But I do not think it is true, <strong>an</strong>d in fact St.
Robert Bellarmine refuted it in his usual masterful m<strong>an</strong>ner. It would be a shame to consider this
erroneous opinion without reading the refutation of St. Robert Bellarmine, so here it is.
This principle is most certain. The non-Christi<strong>an</strong> c<strong>an</strong>not in <strong>an</strong>y way be Pope, as Cajet<strong>an</strong>
himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he c<strong>an</strong>not be head of what he is not a
member; now he who is not a Christi<strong>an</strong> is not a member of the Church, <strong>an</strong>d a m<strong>an</strong>ifest
heretic is not a Christi<strong>an</strong>, as is clearly taught by St. Cypri<strong>an</strong> (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Ath<strong>an</strong>asius
(Scr. 2 cont. Ari<strong>an</strong>.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.)
<strong>an</strong>d others; therefore the m<strong>an</strong>ifest heretic c<strong>an</strong>not be Pope.
To this Cajet<strong>an</strong> responds (in Apol. pro tract. praedicto cap. 25 et in ipso tract. cap. 22) that
the heretic is not a Christi<strong>an</strong> "simpliciter" [i.e. without qualification, or absolutely], but is one
"secundum quid" [i.e. in a qualified or relative sense]. For, gr<strong>an</strong>ted that two things constitute
the Christi<strong>an</strong> - the faith <strong>an</strong>d the [baptismal] character - the heretic, having lost the faith, is
still in some way united to the Church <strong>an</strong>d is capable of jurisdiction; therefore, he is also
Pope, but ought to be removed, since he is disposed, with ultimate disposition, to cease to
be Pope: as the m<strong>an</strong> who is still not dead but is "in extremis" [at the point of death].
Against this: in the first place, if the heretic remained, "in actu" [actually], united to the
Church in virtue of the character, he would never be able to be cut or separated from her "in
actu", for the character is indelible. But there is no one who denies that some people may be
separated "in actu" from the Church. Therefore, the character does not make the heretic be
"in actu" in the Church, but is only a sign that he was in the Church <strong>an</strong>d that he must return
to her. Analogously, when a sheep w<strong>an</strong>ders lost in the mountains, the mark impressed on it
does not make it be in the fold, but indicates from which fold it had fled <strong>an</strong>d to which fold it
ought to be brought back. This truth has a confirmation in St. Thomas who says (Summ.
Theol. III, q. 8, a. 3) that those who do not have the faith are not united "in actu" to Christ,
but only potentially - <strong>an</strong>d St. Thomas here refers to the internal union, <strong>an</strong>d not to the
external which is produced by the confession of faith <strong>an</strong>d visible signs. Therefore, as the
character is something internal, <strong>an</strong>d not external, according to St. Thomas the character
14