Concerning an SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism - Novus Ordo Watch

The arguments presented by the divers authors in connection with this ultimate point are
decisive, <strong>an</strong>d particularly the arguments drawn from the practice of the Church: by the Code
of C<strong>an</strong>on law the heretic only loses jurisdiction when a condemnatory <strong>an</strong>d declaratory
sentence is passed against him; priests who have ab<strong>an</strong>doned the Church have jurisdiction to
give absolution to persons in peril of their lives; it is commonly admitted that the schismatic
eastern rite bishops (they are also heretics) possess a jurisdiction which the Popes tacitly
concede to them; etc.
Therefore, we do not qualify that incompatibility as absolute, but we speak only of
incompatibility in radice. Heresy cuts the root <strong>an</strong>d foundation of jurisdiction, this is, the faith
<strong>an</strong>d the condition of being a member of the Church. But it does not eliminate ipso facto <strong>an</strong>d
necessarily the jurisdiction itself. Just as a tree c<strong>an</strong> conserve life even for some time after its
roots are cut off, so also, in frequent cases, the jurisdiction perdures even after the fall into
heresy of him who possessed it. 8
Before proceeding to examine these arguments a fundamental point must be made. There c<strong>an</strong> be
no intelligible discussion of this matter if the distinction between occult <strong>an</strong>d m<strong>an</strong>ifest heresy is
omitted, for it is upon the relative publicity of the crime of heresy that membership in the Church
depends; <strong>an</strong>d it is upon membership in the Church that the loss of (habitual) jurisdiction depends, as
da Silveira has noticed. And as this erudite m<strong>an</strong> has also noted, whilst the authors are not all exactly
consistent with each other in their use of these terms, <strong>an</strong>d they do differ subtly in their
underst<strong>an</strong>ding of each of the degrees of publicity <strong>an</strong>d precisely where to draw each line, there is
certainly sufficient agreement for practical purposes. This agreement could be summarised, I think,
as that occult heresy does not result in loss of membership in the Church, <strong>an</strong>d public heresy does.
“M<strong>an</strong>ifest” as employed by St. Robert Bellarmine appears to equate to “public” as defined by the
Code of C<strong>an</strong>on Law.
Da Silveira, however, appears to have covered this ground in a hurry, for he makes the most
inexplicable error, right at the beginning. He admits, following Bellarmine’s lucid teaching, that
“Scripture <strong>an</strong>d Tradition make clear the existence of a profound incompatibility, in radice (in its root)
between the condition of heretic <strong>an</strong>d the possession of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, since the heretic
ceases to be a member of the Church.” And in those few words traces the effect <strong>an</strong>d the cause with
complete precision, viz. that the loss of jurisdiction – the effect – is caused by the loss of
membership in the Church. This is entirely clear <strong>an</strong>d sound. Only a member of the Church may
possess habitual jurisdiction, as Bellarmine says.
8 Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira, op.cit.
20